Michael Rys

Musings on XML, XQuery and more...

<December 2008>
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
30123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031123
45678910


Navigation

Papers

SQL Server XML Whitepapers

Weblogging Links

MS Bloggers

Recommended Books

Other Blogs

Recommended Links

Presentations (Upcoming)

Presentations (Recent)

Subscriptions

News


Upcoming Presentations


TechEd 2007, Orlando, June 4 to June 8, 2007


Books I co-authored



www.flickr.com
This is a Flickr badge showing public photos from Michael Rys. Make your own badge here.
eXTReMe Tracker

Post Categories

Article Categories



The top three reasons why...

Mike Champion recently summarized quite nicely why we are not including XQuery support in the Whidbey version of the .Net Framework. However, some people are now wondering why some of these arguments do not apply to the SQL Server server-side implementation. For example, Oleg writes:

What I still dislike is the lack of a consistency. A subset of XQuery (which is considered as stable enough) is still going to be supported in SQL Server 2005, but not in .NET. Weird, but you know, admit it - SQL Server team just can afford it.

Affordability is not the main reason. So let me give you the top 3 reasons why we think that we can and should ship a limited XQuery support inside the database engine:

  1. SQL Server (unlike the .Net Framework) already has mechanisms to deal with future changes that break backwards-compatibility (the database compatibility levels). Thus, if we implement something that is not according to the final standard either on purpose or the standard changes after we ship, we can provide a way to users to chose the compatibility level, when we align the behaviour with the standard in a future release. The .Net Framework has no such capability and would make a revision much harder on the programmers.
  2. Since we are planning on using XQuery to query XML data, we did not want to provide a stop-gag language such as XPath 1.0. That would have cost us almost as much in implementation cost and would have created instant legacy. And not providing a query language on the XML would not be very useful, wouldn't it? OTOH, the .Net Framework already provides such languages and has to carry them forward in any case.
  3. By scoping the XQuery implementation to a subset, we minimize the risk of non-anticipated breaking changes while still providing values to our customers. It also allows us to grow our implementation into what users really need in XQuery instead of wasting resources in implementing/testing and documenting functionality that is rarely used. And yes, I know that we currently do not implement some useful functionality such as user-defined functions and modules (which are still being worked on in the working group).

posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 1:49 PM by mrys


# The top three reasons why... @ Monday, December 20, 2004 5:09 PM

mrys

# Get your hands dirty with XQuery inside of SQL Server @ Tuesday, January 18, 2005 3:04 PM

In a recent comment on the post that Michael Rys recently his linked to via a comment here on &lt;XSLT:Blog/> Tum asks: "Is there going to be a downloadable implementation for adventurous XML developers?" In response Michael Rys points to...

mrys

# Official statement on cutting XQuery from the .Net Framework is now on MSDN @ Friday, January 28, 2005 12:01 AM

Official statement on cutting XQuery from the .Net Framework is now on MSDN

mrys

# Official statement on cutting XQuery from the .Net Framework is now on MSDN @ Friday, January 28, 2005 12:04 AM

mrys

# [C#] XQuery einf @ Tuesday, March 01, 2005 8:14 AM

mrys

# Yet Another Petition to Microsoft: XQuery in the .NET Framework @ Wednesday, April 27, 2005 4:55 PM

Yet Another Petition to Microsoft: XQuery in the .NET Framework

mrys

# XQuery Support Petition @ Friday, April 29, 2005 12:01 AM

mrys

# links for 2005-05-02 @ Monday, May 02, 2005 7:07 PM

links for 2005-05-02

mrys




Powered by Dot Net Junkies, by Telligent Systems