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

Re: Typing and paranoia

• To: XML DEV <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Typing and paranoia
• From: "W. E. Perry" <wperry@f...>
• Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 08:36:10 -0500
• Organization: Fiduciary Automation
• References: <3DEF8BFF.4030100@t...> <oprgx03bryezizxn@localhost> <p04330102ba155c1a0b9f@[192.168.254.4]> <3DF07A20.3000809@e...> <3DF08F4F.6050207@p...>

Bill de hÓra wrote:

> I wonder if the problem is not so much binary v XML, but the that XML trees
> are awkward enough datastructures to stream efficiently and require too
> much buffering. Even if you can pass it around binary Infosets, processors
> still have the root ndoe/element item to contend with. Perhaps the problem
> goes away when we stop insisting on sending large single XML documents
> around instead of a few smaller ones. There's a lot to be said for the
> packet and MIME worldviews.

Thinking of (and sending around only) AngleBracketedUnicodeText might also
help us to realize that it is not trees which we are streaming or otherwise
passing between processes. A tree is constructed on the output of parsing at
each processing node. Because the expertise and the intended function of each
node will differ, there is no reason to assume that it is a goal, or even
desirable, to construct at a receiving node the same tree which was
'serialized' by the sender.

Respectfully,

Walter Perry

• References:
  • Typing and paranoia
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
  • Re: Typing and paranoia
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
  • Re: Typing and paranoia
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: Typing and paranoia
    • From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>
  • Re: Typing and paranoia
    • From: Bill de hÓra <bill.dehora@p...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Typing and paranoia
• Next by Date: Re: bohemians, gentry
• Previous by thread: Re: Typing and paranoia
• Next by thread: Re: Typing and paranoia
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread