Page 2 of 2 <12
Topic Options
#115966 - 2004-09-28 10:23 PM Re: XML Support
Stevie Offline
Starting to like KiXtart
*****

Registered: 2002-01-09
Posts: 199
Though I know this is an old thread, I'm just stumbling across it now that it has been freshly revived.

If bloat is the driving force behind what is included and what is excluded, then the drive mapping, printer mapping, program group, file and file management, ini and registry functions should all be removed as they are all available via external means--either through COM manipulation, or internal/external batch functions. Removing all of these redundant functions will result in an even smaller version of the .exe and a much more streamlined app. However...

If I wanted to use a language that just provided the mechanism to access these functions without providing any real added value itself, I'd just go ahead and focus on VBScript. The beauty of KiX (at least for me) is that if I want to map a drive, or modify some element of the users environment, or do some file manipulations, it's all available to me in the core language. In VBScript you can't even get an environment variable without the WshEnvironment object!!

The fact that these things are in the core language makes it easier to work with, easier for up-and-coming scripters to get their heads around and in short, easier to be more productive. Removing functionality because it already exists in other libraries or refusing to add additional functionality for the same reason just kills the thing that KiX has always had over other script languages.

For me, if the make-or-break issue was the size of the kix executable, and I was on a network where a 5, 10, or 50K increase in the size of this file would have a cataclysmic impact, then I'd probably avoid KiXtart altogether and focus on a different technology.

But it's precisely because the language itself natively contains real value to the scripting community that it really shines over its peers, not because we're able to shave another 5K off the exe size.

Of course, I agree that functionality can't be added ad hoc, but each new inclusion should be well thought out and be deserved. XML as a data format is not going away and its usage will only increase with time. For the same reason that the INI format is supported (because it makes sense, not because it was written before COM interoperability) I feel that XML should be supported as well, so that KiXtart can maintain that sense of dominance over other languages that are nowhere near as feature rich.
_________________________
Stevie

Top
#115967 - 2004-09-28 10:44 PM Re: XML Support
Les Offline
KiX Master
*****

Registered: 2001-06-11
Posts: 12734
Loc: fortfrances.on.ca
...and just maybe Ruud could create the MakeEXE I suggested and strip the executable down to the leanest, meanest runtime that would make room for just a little bloat.
_________________________
Give a man a fish and he will be back for more. Slap him with a fish and he will go away forever.

Top
#115968 - 2004-09-29 10:10 AM Re: XML Support
Richard H. Administrator Offline
Administrator
*****

Registered: 2000-01-24
Posts: 4945
Loc: Leatherhead, Surrey, UK
We already have an extensible method of adding functionality to KiXtart as needed - User Defined Functions.

As an example there is no specific ODBC or SQL support built in to KiXtart, but if you browse the UDF forum you will find a number of functions which abstract the code needed to provide the features as simplified APIs.

So why not have an XML document UDF library to manage XML files?

It's entirely possible that I've missed some fundamental reason why support cannot be provided this way and must be built in to the language.

Maybe one of the XML proponents could take this a bit further with a definition of what support is required. Features that cannot be supported with existing KiXtart functionality would be especially interesting.

Has anyone played with the Microsoft XML SDKs in KiXtart?
More information here

Top
#115969 - 2004-09-29 07:05 PM Re: XML Support
Stevie Offline
Starting to like KiXtart
*****

Registered: 2002-01-09
Posts: 199
You're absolutely correct in that UDFs can be created to provide a feature complete XML wrapper. I think the disconnect may be in what is meant by "XML support." I agree that KiXtart does not, and should not, contain functions that provide access to the complete XML Document Object Model (XMLDOM). The XMLDOM is too large with too many functions, many of which would be largely untouched.

My only point was that it would definitely be a good thing to have a couple of internal kix functions that return node text data and also attribute data:
GetXMLText(file, node)
GetXMLAttribute(file, node, attribute)

(With corresponding Set functions)

Just a couple of functions to make it as easy to access XML data as it to access ini or registry data now.
_________________________
Stevie

Top
#115970 - 2004-10-01 10:04 PM Re: XML Support
NTDOC Administrator Offline
Administrator
*****

Registered: 2000-07-28
Posts: 11570
Loc: CA
Just FYI material

Quote:

MSXML 6.0 SDK
What is MSXML?
Microsoft® XML Core Services (MSXML) 6.0 allows customers to build high-performance XML-based applications that provide a high degree of interoperability with other applications that adhere to the XML 1.0 standard.

Among the core services MSXML 6.0 provides is developer support for the following:

The Document Object Model (DOM), a standard library of application programming interfaces (APIs) for accessing XML documents.
The XML Schema definition language (XSD), a current W3C standard for using XML to create XML Schemas. XML Schemas can be used to validate other XML documents.
The Schema Object Model (SOM), an additional set of APIs for accessing XML Schema documents programmatically.
Extensible Stylesheet Language Transformations (XSLT) 1.0, a current W3C XML style sheet language standard. XSLT is recommended for transforming XML documents.
The XML Path Language (XPath) 1.0, a current W3C XML standard used by XSLT and other XML programming vocabularies to query and filter data stored in XML documents.
The Simple API for XML (SAX), a programmatic alternative to DOM-based processing.




Top
#115971 - 2004-10-01 11:24 PM Re: XML Support
Jose Offline
Seasoned Scripter
*****

Registered: 2001-04-04
Posts: 693
Loc: Buenos Aires - Argentina
Very good idea guys about an UDF for XML format. I can tell XMLDOM needs some reading, understanding and practice in order to achieve some results and not all of us have the time or skill to do it. An UDF would be nice definitely!!.
BTW ...nice tutorial reference.


Edited by jose3 (2004-10-01 11:33 PM)
_________________________
Life is fine.

Top
#207636 - 2013-08-23 02:15 PM Re: XML Support [Re: Jose]
Jochen Administrator Offline
KiX Supporter
*****

Registered: 2000-03-17
Posts: 6372
Loc: Stuttgart, Germany
While this thread is now round about 9 years old and the last posted link is reported as an attack page in FF meanwhile m(

XML has become a quasi 'industrial' standard .. should we reopen this can of worms as Chris and/or Les stated, or should we take the challenge and build some udfs for more than the standards of 1999 to work?
_________________________



Top
#207637 - 2013-08-23 04:50 PM Re: XML Support [Re: Jochen]
Allen Administrator Offline
KiX Supporter
*****

Registered: 2003-04-19
Posts: 4455
Loc: USA
I certainly think having a good set of XML udfs would be beneficial, but... I think the amount of work required to get all that going is going to be tough. I tend to be willing to work on UDFs when I have a direct use for them. But in this case, in all my years of scripting, I think XML code has been needed like 2 or 3 times, and none of those instances were of the Work/Critical type.
Top
#207640 - 2013-08-24 11:45 AM Re: XML Support [Re: Allen]
NTDOC Administrator Offline
Administrator
*****

Registered: 2000-07-28
Posts: 11570
Loc: CA
Would tend to agree with Allen. Have had 0 need to create, add, modify an XML file via script ever.

Curious what your need is Jochen. Maybe something I'm just overlooking.

Top
#207641 - 2013-08-24 12:35 PM Re: XML Support [Re: NTDOC]
Jochen Administrator Offline
KiX Supporter
*****

Registered: 2000-03-17
Posts: 6372
Loc: Stuttgart, Germany
see thread in mods forum Ron ;\)
Problem atm is complex xml and XSD schemas .. I will have to cobble something, but as said there: in case of time's running out I'll write that things out with ADODB.stream(s*)

* depending on the need of BOM or not BOM

[edit: I would be satisfied when the things I start with don't just read and write but rebuild the ease of using read/writeprofilestring \:D ]

[edit2: The things you could do with this are beyond being useful ... but agreed: There will be work to do! Culprit with these standards is that everyone wants to make a quick $ whitit .. even those simple and free xml editors there were in the start/mid 0's are now available only for $$$]


Edited by Jochen (2013-08-24 12:44 PM)
Edit Reason: *%&$§ cash disciples
_________________________



Top
Page 2 of 2 <12


Moderator:  Lonkero, ShaneEP, Jochen, Radimus, Glenn Barnas, Allen, Mart 
Hop to:
Shout Box

Who's Online
0 registered and 170 anonymous users online.
Newest Members
gkustra, emnipetro, Hirze, thequeen, ameliaryan
17642 Registered Users

Generated in 0.033 seconds in which 0.01 seconds were spent on a total of 14 queries. Zlib compression enabled.

Search the board with:
superb Board Search
or try with google:
Google
Web kixtart.org