Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Simon St.Laurent wrote: > On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 13:41, Tim Bray wrote: > >>> >> You're buying some performance. You're giving up a lot of the things >> that make XML worthwhile, in particular no binary dependencies >> on any particular hardware, OS, or whatever. Your call. But it >> feels like a lousy bargain, architecturally, compared to [1]. >> -Tim >> > > If they're just passing the information within a single program or a single > pipeline (think a stack of SAX filters), then [2-3-4] make sense. Once > you cross that boundary (which can be kind of blurry), then you're completely > right that [1] offers the most flexibility by far. > That's precisely what we are doing - option [1] for interfacing with external components, [2-3-4] for in-process components. I think of it as not so much losing a document, more like gaining an infoset. Some of these are areas that just wouldn't be viable for fully serialised XML. Who's claiming a place on the short list of the net's highest-throughput XML applications nowadays? Francis.
|
