# ROXML versus simple to\_xml **URL:** \ **Category:** Rails\ **Created:** [January 5, 2009, 9:09pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/roxml-versus-simple-to-xml/156959 "2009-01-05T21:09:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![tlianza](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/ce7236/32.png) [@tlianza](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tlianza)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2009, 9:09pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/roxml-versus-simple-to-xml/156959/1 "2009-01-05T21:09:14Z")
How they differ? Does the to\_xml method of the classes array/hash/object is based on ROXML lib? As I see in [http://roxml.rubyforge.org/#quickstart](http://roxml.rubyforge.org/#quickstart), roxml needs we define the class (class Book in the guide) before to convert a object to xml. Moreover, the method to\_xml (when not using “include ROXML”) just accepts any existing object, what is much suitable. I need to compare and tranfer some records between local and remote systems periodically. The tables (mysql) has simple varchar/integer/ date/decimal types. Which type of xml mapping is recommended to achieve this task? ROXML or pure to\_xml method? Thank you! ---
**Author:** ![tlianza](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/ce7236/32.png) [@tlianza](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tlianza)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2009, 9:17pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/roxml-versus-simple-to-xml/156959/2 "2009-01-05T21:17:29Z")
On 5 Jan 2009, at 20:08, Tom L. wrote: > roxml is trying to solve a more general problem - if you models aren’t activerecord models then they are not going to have a particularly useful to\_xml on it (the time i used it was generated xml to pass to a webservice) It’s also pretty handy for parsing incoming xml. Fred ---
**Author:** ![tlianza](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/ce7236/32.png) [@tlianza](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tlianza)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2009, 9:41pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/roxml-versus-simple-to-xml/156959/3 "2009-01-05T21:41:01Z")
On 5 jan, 18:16, Frederick C. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > roxml is trying to solve a more general problem - if you models aren’t > activerecord models then they are not going to have a particularly > useful to\_xml on it (the time i used it was generated xml to pass to a > webservice) Sorry my bad english. I`m not sure if I understood your answer. My model is activerecord based, but has just simple attributes (strings, integers, dates). Do you mean I don`t need ROXML in this simple case? The non- roxml to\_xml/from\_xml methods can do the job? ---
**Author:** ![tlianza](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/ce7236/32.png) [@tlianza](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tlianza)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2009, 10:01pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/roxml-versus-simple-to-xml/156959/4 "2009-01-05T22:01:33Z")
On 5 Jan 2009, at 20:40, Tom L. wrote: > Sorry my bad english. I`m not sure if I understood your answer. My model is activerecord based, but has just simple attributes (strings, integers, dates). Do you mean I don`t need ROXML in this simple case? The non- > roxml > to\_xml/from\_xml methods can do the job? I would have though to\_xml/from\_xml would be quite enough here. Fred ---
**Author:** ![tlianza](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/ce7236/32.png) [@tlianza](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tlianza)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2009, 10:29pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/roxml-versus-simple-to-xml/156959/5 "2009-01-05T22:29:42Z")
On 5 Jan 2009, at 21:18, Tom L. wrote: > ok, thank you very much!! > I will try it. > > Anyway, What are the “more general problem” you said? Just the more general case of mapping xml fragments to objects. Fred ---
**Author:** ![tlianza](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/ce7236/32.png) [@tlianza](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tlianza)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2009, 10:19pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/roxml-versus-simple-to-xml/156959/6 "2009-01-05T22:19:43Z")
ok, thank you very much!! I will try it. Anyway, What are the “more general problem” you said?