[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Textual transmission typically faster?

• From: Eugene Kuznetsov <eugene@d...>
• To: David Megginson <david@m...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 09:41:52 -0500

> I recall one of the presenters at XTech last year had been
> experimenting with using a Java-serialized DOM rather than the source
> XML document, and was surprised to find that the Java-serialized DOM
> was both considerably larger than the *uncompressed* XML and
> considerably slower to load.

That shouldn't be surprising -- generally speaking a parse tree is
larger than the text input to the parser. (And java serialization 
doesn't win any awards for efficiency in either time or space).

However, a binary representation of the same data (specified in 
ASN.1 and encoded using BER, say) would be much smaller and more
efficient.

\\ Eugene Kuznetsov
\\ eugene@d...
\\ DataPower Technology, Inc.
 

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Textual transmission typically faster?
    • From: Caroline Clewlow <cclewlow@e...>
  • RE: Textual transmission typically faster?
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>
  • RE: Textual transmission typically faster?
    • From: Matt Sergeant <matt@s...>

• References:
  • Re: Textual transmission typically faster?
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Textual transmission typically faster?
• Next by Date: XML vs HTML browser for PDA
• Previous by thread: Re: Textual transmission typically faster?
• Next by thread: Re: Textual transmission typically faster?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread