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

RE: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?

• To: 'Liam Quin' <liam@w...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 14:56:02 -0500

That's an interesting set of examples.  It suggests 
that a desirable feature of a standard binarization 
utility is the ability to set properties to control 
features for choosing among size, numbers of files 
contained, speed of compression/decompression, 
and use of different resources.

D'oh, but noteworthy given that different XML 
application languages need different tradeoffs. 

len


From: Liam Quin [mailto:liam@w...]

gzip, bzip2 and ZIP are all different compression systems.

Zip (widely used in the Microsoft Windows and MS-DOS worlds) puts
a table of contents at the end of the data stream.  This reduces
memory overhead in the compressor, but makes ZIP unsuitable in many
cases for streaming.

The GNU zip program, gzip, is actually not a plugin replacement for
programs such as pkzip, winzip and zip.  It compresses a single file,
but supports streaming decompression.

bzip2 is similar to gzip.  It often gets better compression, at the
expense of higher CPU and/or memory usage.  With the most widespread
implementation of bzip2, decompression can require over 3.4 megabytes
of memory; reducing the block size from the default during compression
will reduce this, at the expense of needing more CPU time.

• Prev by Date: Re: A parentless element that is not the document node -how?
• Next by Date: RE: A parentless element that is not the document node - how?
• Previous by thread: Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
• Next by thread: RE: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread