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

Re: XML / HTML Transport size

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: XML / HTML Transport size
• From: "Andrzej Jan Taramina" <andrzej@c...>
• Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 13:51:26 -0500
• In-reply-to: <oprf2avxw3ezizxn@localhost>
• Organization: Chaeron Consulting Corporation
• Priority: normal
• Reply-to: andrzej@c...

> I have seen the same thing.  Perhaps it's because XML has been driven so
> deeply into the infrastructure.  In an XML application, the bandwidth
> costs and parsing overhead are generally trivial compared to the other
> processing requirements and the benefits that the network effect offers.
> In XML infrastructure that does NOTHING BUT move around and
> parse/serialize XML, these overheads become significant bottlenecks.  So
> while "XML is inefficient" is an antipattern at the application level,
> it's an increasingly 
>  obvious truth at the infrastructure level.  Obviously this
> doesn't mean that we abandon XML, just that we have to take
> compact, easier-to-parse representations of the XML Infoset
> more seriously in *internal* pipelines, and perhaps think about
> standardizing more efficient alternatives to the XML 1.0 syntax
> for high-performance or limited-bandwidth environments.

Exactly my thinking as well.  Think about embedded controllers....some of 
them are so tiny/slow that you can't easily do even the simplest of XML 
parsing (ala kXML).

Andrzej Jan Taramina
Chaeron Corporation: Enterprise System Solutions
http://www.chaeron.com

• References:
  • Re: XML / HTML Transport size
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• Prev by Date: 3 Weeks To Go -- XML 2002 Expo Gaining Momentum; 2nd XML Cup To Be Presented
• Next by Date: Re: more QName madness
• Previous by thread: Re: XML / HTML Transport size
• Next by thread: RE: XML / HTML Transport size
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread