|
dev
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Can I trust Microsoft for FOR XML AUTO or FOR XML RAW ?I have been there a situation of an apprehension that Microsoft may issue some patch or hotfix in future for SQL SERVER, that will change the shape of XML results yielded by FOR XML AUTO or FOR XML RAW query. Our query is going to be rigid in the application and the data would then be passed through sensitive application that may crash if xml is not valid, we have many types of xmls so we cannot create schema for each and every guy and same with EXPLICIT. Is this superstition valid that I shouldnt trust Microsoft here ? Any input in this will sincerely be appreciated. Fahad "Fahad Ashfaque" <FahadAshfa***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message FOR XML AUTO and FOR XML RAW results are pretty well defined, since SQL news:86415A5A-428D-48DF-9175-114E9E0030F7@microsoft.com... > Hi, > > I have been there a situation of an apprehension that Microsoft may issue > some patch or hotfix in future for SQL SERVER, that will change the shape > of > XML results yielded by FOR XML AUTO or FOR XML RAW query. 2000. It's doubtful these would change in the current version of SQL Server (2005) or espcially in 2000. A lot of people have already written applications that use this functionality which would surely break if they changed it. However the results are subject to change if your schema changes which is probably a much more likely situation. > Our query is going to be rigid in the application and the data would then I would recommend using FOR XML PATH if you have SQL 2005. It's easy to > be > passed through sensitive application that may crash if xml is not valid, > we > have many types of xmls so we cannot create schema for each and every guy > and > same with EXPLICIT. use, uses XPath notation to define your XML, and you can easily update or modify it if your schema changes. > Is this superstition valid that I shouldnt trust Microsoft here ? Like I said, if they change this in a Service Pack (and it's been around since SQL 2000), they are going to have a lot of unhappy customers who have invested a lot of time and money in building applications to use it. OTOH, one could say the same thing about COM and VB 6 :) At any rate I wouldn't worry too much about it until at least the next major version release.
Show quote
"Fahad Ashfaque" <FahadAshfa***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message I know Microsoft occasionally make breaking changes but normally they go the news:86415A5A-428D-48DF-9175-114E9E0030F7@microsoft.com... > Hi, > > I have been there a situation of an apprehension that Microsoft may issue > some patch or hotfix in future for SQL SERVER, that will change the shape > of > XML results yielded by FOR XML AUTO or FOR XML RAW query. > > > > Our query is going to be rigid in the application and the data would then > be > passed through sensitive application that may crash if xml is not valid, > we > have many types of xmls so we cannot create schema for each and every guy > and > same with EXPLICIT. > > Is this superstition valid that I shouldnt trust Microsoft here ? > > > > Any input in this will sincerely be appreciated. > > > > Fahad > other way, everything has to be backwards compatible even to the detriment of the latest version. Have you any specific reason for worrying that the FOR XML statements are going to be modified? This seems like a strange thing to worry about. Aside from the basic issue
of how else would you represent a simple result set as XML, what motivation would there be to ever changing this? What would happen if Microsoft did this? There would be thousands of blog entries, newsgroup postings, and news articles vilifying Microsoft for sticking it to the little guy, the stock would drop, hundreds of employees would have to change their retirement plans, and the SQL team would be hated by the rest of Microsoft. Contrast this with the alternative of not changing code that works well already and it makes changing the format a poor alternative. Reading between the lines of your post makes me worry that you plan to do some kind of roll your own text parsing instead of using a real XML parser. If this is true then there could be an issue. While the results will be semantically the same, it's hard to guarantee character for character compatibility forever. If you want to do your own parsing you are better off using something like comma separated values. -- Show quoteThis posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm "Fahad Ashfaque" <FahadAshfa***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:86415A5A-428D-48DF-9175-114E9E0030F7@microsoft.com... > Hi, > > I have been there a situation of an apprehension that Microsoft may issue > some patch or hotfix in future for SQL SERVER, that will change the shape > of > XML results yielded by FOR XML AUTO or FOR XML RAW query. > > > > Our query is going to be rigid in the application and the data would then > be > passed through sensitive application that may crash if xml is not valid, > we > have many types of xmls so we cannot create schema for each and every guy > and > same with EXPLICIT. > > Is this superstition valid that I shouldnt trust Microsoft here ? > > > > Any input in this will sincerely be appreciated. > > > > Fahad > "Roger Wolter[MSFT]" <rwol***@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message Do you see this being a problem if the OP is using Unicode?news:OpxtSS7RHHA.4832@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > Reading between the lines of your post makes me worry that you plan to do > some kind of roll your own text parsing instead of using a real XML > parser. If this is true then there could be an issue. While the results > will be semantically the same, it's hard to guarantee character for > character compatibility forever. If you want to do your own parsing you > are better off using something like comma separated values. Could you expand a bit on what you mean? I'm not sure how Unicode fits into
the question. -- Show quoteThis posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm "Mike C#" <x**@xyz.com> wrote in message news:%238jjscTSHHA.5060@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > > "Roger Wolter[MSFT]" <rwol***@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:OpxtSS7RHHA.4832@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> Reading between the lines of your post makes me worry that you plan to do >> some kind of roll your own text parsing instead of using a real XML >> parser. If this is true then there could be an issue. While the results >> will be semantically the same, it's hard to guarantee character for >> character compatibility forever. If you want to do your own parsing you >> are better off using something like comma separated values. > > Do you see this being a problem if the OP is using Unicode? > "Roger Wolter[MSFT]" <rwol***@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message "While the results will be semantically the same, it's hard to guarantee news:O8Ac8EUSHHA.3592@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > Could you expand a bit on what you mean? I'm not sure how Unicode fits > into the question. character for character compatibility forever." I assumed you were talking about character sets, code pages, etc., in your "character for character compatibility" statement. Did I misunderstand? No, I was talking about white space and namespace prefixes, etc. These are
the things that break when people write their own parsers instead of using a full XML parser. -- Show quoteThis posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm "Mike C#" <x**@xyz.com> wrote in message news:uvLHAwWSHHA.3948@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > > "Roger Wolter[MSFT]" <rwol***@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:O8Ac8EUSHHA.3592@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> Could you expand a bit on what you mean? I'm not sure how Unicode fits >> into the question. > > "While the results will be semantically the same, it's hard to guarantee > character for character compatibility forever." > > I assumed you were talking about character sets, code pages, etc., in your > "character for character compatibility" statement. Did I misunderstand? > As the program manager still responsible for FOR XML, we are not planning on
changing the XML infoset generated by FOR XML RAW, EXPLICIT or PATH (unless we guard it by a backwards-compatibility flag and will document the changed behaviour ahead of time). Between SQL Server 2000 and 2005 we did a few changes, mostly along the lines of entitization changes. We had one breaking change in how FOR XML AUTO dealt with subqueries and views that caused some pain, but was actually a bug fix in the design of FOR XML AUTO's heuristics. So if you can be more specific of what changes you fear, I can give you a more definitive answer. Changes that may happen in the future include addition or removal or certain namespace declarations, changing order of attributes. But we are not planning on changing the resultshapes of the different modes. Best regards Michael Show quote "Fahad Ashfaque" <FahadAshfa***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:86415A5A-428D-48DF-9175-114E9E0030F7@microsoft.com... > Hi, > > I have been there a situation of an apprehension that Microsoft may issue > some patch or hotfix in future for SQL SERVER, that will change the shape > of > XML results yielded by FOR XML AUTO or FOR XML RAW query. > > > > Our query is going to be rigid in the application and the data would then > be > passed through sensitive application that may crash if xml is not valid, > we > have many types of xmls so we cannot create schema for each and every guy > and > same with EXPLICIT. > > Is this superstition valid that I shouldnt trust Microsoft here ? > > > > Any input in this will sincerely be appreciated. > > > > Fahad > Thankyou very much for your interest in helping me Michael and other guys too.
Well I am getting simple shaped XML from a single table which we then transform using XSL. The changes which I am anticipating include Adding any namespace to data element that will make our XPath expressions useless. We will NEVER be able to update XPaths and issue new release of our software once it is burnt into the hardware. Changes in the source tree, again it will require us to update XSL. Show quote "Michael Rys [MSFT]" wrote: > As the program manager still responsible for FOR XML, we are not planning on > changing the XML infoset generated by FOR XML RAW, EXPLICIT or PATH (unless > we guard it by a backwards-compatibility flag and will document the changed > behaviour ahead of time). > > Between SQL Server 2000 and 2005 we did a few changes, mostly along the > lines of entitization changes. We had one breaking change in how FOR XML > AUTO dealt with subqueries and views that caused some pain, but was actually > a bug fix in the design of FOR XML AUTO's heuristics. > > So if you can be more specific of what changes you fear, I can give you a > more definitive answer. > > Changes that may happen in the future include addition or removal or certain > namespace declarations, changing order of attributes. But we are not > planning on changing the resultshapes of the different modes. > > Best regards > Michael > > "Fahad Ashfaque" <FahadAshfa***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:86415A5A-428D-48DF-9175-114E9E0030F7@microsoft.com... > > Hi, > > > > I have been there a situation of an apprehension that Microsoft may issue > > some patch or hotfix in future for SQL SERVER, that will change the shape > > of > > XML results yielded by FOR XML AUTO or FOR XML RAW query. > > > > > > > > Our query is going to be rigid in the application and the data would then > > be > > passed through sensitive application that may crash if xml is not valid, > > we > > have many types of xmls so we cannot create schema for each and every guy > > and > > same with EXPLICIT. > > > > Is this superstition valid that I shouldnt trust Microsoft here ? > > > > > > > > Any input in this will sincerely be appreciated. > > > > > > > > Fahad > > > > > If you have simple shaped XML we are not going to change it.
Best regards Michael Show quote "Fahad Ashfaque" <FahadAshfa***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:D5669B28-53E2-4847-B7D2-22AC1C80533A@microsoft.com... > Thankyou very much for your interest in helping me Michael and other guys > too. > > Well I am getting simple shaped XML from a single table which we then > transform using XSL. The changes which I am anticipating include > > Adding any namespace to data element that will make our XPath expressions > useless. We will NEVER be able to update XPaths and issue new release of > our > software once it is burnt into the hardware. > > Changes in the source tree, again it will require us to update XSL. > > > > > > "Michael Rys [MSFT]" wrote: > >> As the program manager still responsible for FOR XML, we are not planning >> on >> changing the XML infoset generated by FOR XML RAW, EXPLICIT or PATH >> (unless >> we guard it by a backwards-compatibility flag and will document the >> changed >> behaviour ahead of time). >> >> Between SQL Server 2000 and 2005 we did a few changes, mostly along the >> lines of entitization changes. We had one breaking change in how FOR XML >> AUTO dealt with subqueries and views that caused some pain, but was >> actually >> a bug fix in the design of FOR XML AUTO's heuristics. >> >> So if you can be more specific of what changes you fear, I can give you a >> more definitive answer. >> >> Changes that may happen in the future include addition or removal or >> certain >> namespace declarations, changing order of attributes. But we are not >> planning on changing the resultshapes of the different modes. >> >> Best regards >> Michael >> >> "Fahad Ashfaque" <FahadAshfa***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in >> message >> news:86415A5A-428D-48DF-9175-114E9E0030F7@microsoft.com... >> > Hi, >> > >> > I have been there a situation of an apprehension that Microsoft may >> > issue >> > some patch or hotfix in future for SQL SERVER, that will change the >> > shape >> > of >> > XML results yielded by FOR XML AUTO or FOR XML RAW query. >> > >> > >> > >> > Our query is going to be rigid in the application and the data would >> > then >> > be >> > passed through sensitive application that may crash if xml is not >> > valid, >> > we >> > have many types of xmls so we cannot create schema for each and every >> > guy >> > and >> > same with EXPLICIT. >> > >> > Is this superstition valid that I shouldnt trust Microsoft here ? >> > >> > >> > >> > Any input in this will sincerely be appreciated. >> > >> > >> > >> > Fahad >> > >> >> >>
Show quote
> Hi, Very nice site! Good work. http://www.sessit.port5.com> > I have been there a situation of an apprehension that Microsoft may issue > some patch or hotfix in future for SQL SERVER, that will change the shape of > XML results yielded by FOR XML AUTO or FOR XML RAW query. > > > > Our query is going to be rigid in the application and the data would then be > passed through sensitive application that may crash if xml is not valid, we > have many types of xmls so we cannot create schema for each and every guy and > same with EXPLICIT. > > Is this superstition valid that I shouldnt trust Microsoft here ? > > > > Any input in this will sincerely be appreciated. > > > > Fahad BizTalk Utilities - Frustration free BizTalk Adapters http://www.topxml.com/biztalkutilities 
9 Mar 2007 8:44 PM Nice design, good graphical content. I think I'll come back later again;) http://phentermines.forum-
Show quote
> Hi, Nice design, good graphical content. I think I'll come back later again;) http://phentermines.forum-on.de> > I have been there a situation of an apprehension that Microsoft may issue > some patch or hotfix in future for SQL SERVER, that will change the shape of > XML results yielded by FOR XML AUTO or FOR XML RAW query. > > > > Our query is going to be rigid in the application and the data would then be > passed through sensitive application that may crash if xml is not valid, we > have many types of xmls so we cannot create schema for each and every guy and > same with EXPLICIT. > > Is this superstition valid that I shouldnt trust Microsoft here ? > > > > Any input in this will sincerely be appreciated. > > > > Fahad BizTalk Utilities - Frustration free BizTalk Adapters http://www.topxml.com/biztalkutilities
Show quote
> Hi, mmm.. nice design, I must say.. http://www.paradistc.org/italia> > I have been there a situation of an apprehension that Microsoft may issue > some patch or hotfix in future for SQL SERVER, that will change the shape of > XML results yielded by FOR XML AUTO or FOR XML RAW query. > > > > Our query is going to be rigid in the application and the data would then be > passed through sensitive application that may crash if xml is not valid, we > have many types of xmls so we cannot create schema for each and every guy and > same with EXPLICIT. > > Is this superstition valid that I shouldnt trust Microsoft here ? > > > > Any input in this will sincerely be appreciated. > > > > Fahad BizTalk Utilities - Frustration free BizTalk Adapters http://www.topxml.com/biztalkutilities
15 Mar 2007 2:28 AM Du musst ein Fachmann sein - wirklich guter Aufstellungsort, den du hast! http://www.paradistc.org/l
Show quote
> Hi, Du musst ein Fachmann sein - wirklich guter Aufstellungsort, den du hast! http://www.paradistc.org/liberi> > I have been there a situation of an apprehension that Microsoft may issue > some patch or hotfix in future for SQL SERVER, that will change the shape of > XML results yielded by FOR XML AUTO or FOR XML RAW query. > > > > Our query is going to be rigid in the application and the data would then be > passed through sensitive application that may crash if xml is not valid, we > have many types of xmls so we cannot create schema for each and every guy and > same with EXPLICIT. > > Is this superstition valid that I shouldnt trust Microsoft here ? > > > > Any input in this will sincerely be appreciated. > > > > Fahad BizTalk Utilities - Frustration free BizTalk Adapters http://www.topxml.com/biztalkutilities
Show quote
> Hi, i'am really impressed!! http://www.sanzkdni59.org/libera> > I have been there a situation of an apprehension that Microsoft may issue > some patch or hotfix in future for SQL SERVER, that will change the shape of > XML results yielded by FOR XML AUTO or FOR XML RAW query. > > > > Our query is going to be rigid in the application and the data would then be > passed through sensitive application that may crash if xml is not valid, we > have many types of xmls so we cannot create schema for each and every guy and > same with EXPLICIT. > > Is this superstition valid that I shouldnt trust Microsoft here ? > > > > Any input in this will sincerely be appreciated. > > > > Fahad BizTalk Utilities - Frustration free BizTalk Adapters http://www.topxml.com/biztalkutilities
Show quote
> Hi, luogo grande:) nessun osservazioni! http://www.paradistc.org/sardinia> > I have been there a situation of an apprehension that Microsoft may issue > some patch or hotfix in future for SQL SERVER, that will change the shape of > XML results yielded by FOR XML AUTO or FOR XML RAW query. > > > > Our query is going to be rigid in the application and the data would then be > passed through sensitive application that may crash if xml is not valid, we > have many types of xmls so we cannot create schema for each and every guy and > same with EXPLICIT. > > Is this superstition valid that I shouldnt trust Microsoft here ? > > > > Any input in this will sincerely be appreciated. > > > > Fahad BizTalk Utilities - Frustration free BizTalk Adapters http://www.topxml.com/biztalkutilities
20 Mar 2007 6:42 AM Chi ha fatto questo? E un buon posto per trovare le informazioni importanti!:) http://www.sanzkdni59
Show quote
> Hi, Chi ha fatto questo? E un buon posto per trovare le informazioni importanti!:) http://www.sanzkdni59.org/formula-1> > I have been there a situation of an apprehension that Microsoft may issue > some patch or hotfix in future for SQL SERVER, that will change the shape of > XML results yielded by FOR XML AUTO or FOR XML RAW query. > > > > Our query is going to be rigid in the application and the data would then be > passed through sensitive application that may crash if xml is not valid, we > have many types of xmls so we cannot create schema for each and every guy and > same with EXPLICIT. > > Is this superstition valid that I shouldnt trust Microsoft here ? > > > > Any input in this will sincerely be appreciated. > > > > Fahad BizTalk Utilities - Frustration free BizTalk Adapters http://www.topxml.com/biztalkutilities
20 Mar 2007 9:40 PM Lavoro eccellente! ..ringraziamenti per le informazioni..realmente lo apprezzo: D http://www.sanzkdn
Show quote
> Hi, Lavoro eccellente! ..ringraziamenti per le informazioni..realmente lo apprezzo: D http://www.sanzkdni59.org/del-piero> > I have been there a situation of an apprehension that Microsoft may issue > some patch or hotfix in future for SQL SERVER, that will change the shape of > XML results yielded by FOR XML AUTO or FOR XML RAW query. > > > > Our query is going to be rigid in the application and the data would then be > passed through sensitive application that may crash if xml is not valid, we > have many types of xmls so we cannot create schema for each and every guy and > same with EXPLICIT. > > Is this superstition valid that I shouldnt trust Microsoft here ? > > > > Any input in this will sincerely be appreciated. > > > > Fahad BizTalk Utilities - Frustration free BizTalk Adapters http://www.topxml.com/biztalkutilities
Show quote
> Hi, Interessieren. SEHR interessant! ;) http://www.circumno3.org/sesso> > I have been there a situation of an apprehension that Microsoft may issue > some patch or hotfix in future for SQL SERVER, that will change the shape of > XML results yielded by FOR XML AUTO or FOR XML RAW query. > > > > Our query is going to be rigid in the application and the data would then be > passed through sensitive application that may crash if xml is not valid, we > have many types of xmls so we cannot create schema for each and every guy and > same with EXPLICIT. > > Is this superstition valid that I shouldnt trust Microsoft here ? > > > > Any input in this will sincerely be appreciated. > > > > Fahad BizTalk Utilities - Frustration free BizTalk Adapters http://www.topxml.com/biztalkutilities
31 Mar 2007 7:10 AM Du musst ein Fachmann sein - wirklich guter Aufstellungsort, den du hast! http://www.circumno3.org/g
Show quote
> Hi, Du musst ein Fachmann sein - wirklich guter Aufstellungsort, den du hast! http://www.circumno3.org/guerra> > I have been there a situation of an apprehension that Microsoft may issue > some patch or hotfix in future for SQL SERVER, that will change the shape of > XML results yielded by FOR XML AUTO or FOR XML RAW query. > > > > Our query is going to be rigid in the application and the data would then be > passed through sensitive application that may crash if xml is not valid, we > have many types of xmls so we cannot create schema for each and every guy and > same with EXPLICIT. > > Is this superstition valid that I shouldnt trust Microsoft here ? > > > > Any input in this will sincerely be appreciated. > > > > Fahad BizTalk Utilities - Frustration free BizTalk Adapters http://www.topxml.com/biztalkutilities
31 Mar 2007 11:18 AM L'information interessante que vous avez! I'am allant revenir bientot. http://www.qukeartiere90.org/
Show quote
> Hi, L'information interessante que vous avez! I'am allant revenir bientot. http://www.qukeartiere90.org/valentino-rossi> > I have been there a situation of an apprehension that Microsoft may issue > some patch or hotfix in future for SQL SERVER, that will change the shape of > XML results yielded by FOR XML AUTO or FOR XML RAW query. > > > > Our query is going to be rigid in the application and the data would then be > passed through sensitive application that may crash if xml is not valid, we > have many types of xmls so we cannot create schema for each and every guy and > same with EXPLICIT. > > Is this superstition valid that I shouldnt trust Microsoft here ? > > > > Any input in this will sincerely be appreciated. > > > > Fahad BizTalk Utilities - Frustration free BizTalk Adapters http://www.topxml.com/biztalkutilities
31 Mar 2007 3:16 PM Ich erklare meinen Freunden uber diese Seite. Interessieren! http://www.qukeartiere90.org/erotismo
Show quote
> Hi, Ich erklare meinen Freunden uber diese Seite. Interessieren! http://www.qukeartiere90.org/erotismo> > I have been there a situation of an apprehension that Microsoft may issue > some patch or hotfix in future for SQL SERVER, that will change the shape of > XML results yielded by FOR XML AUTO or FOR XML RAW query. > > > > Our query is going to be rigid in the application and the data would then be > passed through sensitive application that may crash if xml is not valid, we > have many types of xmls so we cannot create schema for each and every guy and > same with EXPLICIT. > > Is this superstition valid that I shouldnt trust Microsoft here ? > > > > Any input in this will sincerely be appreciated. > > > > Fahad BizTalk Utilities - Frustration free BizTalk Adapters http://www.topxml.com/biztalkutilities
Show quote
> Hi, Grande sito!! http://www.qukeartiere90.org/guerra-vida-wallpaper> > I have been there a situation of an apprehension that Microsoft may issue > some patch or hotfix in future for SQL SERVER, that will change the shape of > XML results yielded by FOR XML AUTO or FOR XML RAW query. > > > > Our query is going to be rigid in the application and the data would then be > passed through sensitive application that may crash if xml is not valid, we > have many types of xmls so we cannot create schema for each and every guy and > same with EXPLICIT. > > Is this superstition valid that I shouldnt trust Microsoft here ? > > > > Any input in this will sincerely be appreciated. > > > > Fahad BizTalk Utilities - Frustration free BizTalk Adapters http://www.topxml.com/biztalkutilities  |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Other interesting topics