Re: Pushing all the buttons
Mike Champion wrote: >[Quoting from Bray, St. Laurent, and de Hora ...] > > > >>>>Pelegri-Llopart said "The main point here is there >>>> >>>> >>is almost an order >> >> >>>>of magnitude between straightforward Web services >>>> >>>> >>using XML encoding >> >> >>>>and an implementation that takes care of binary >>>> >>>> >>encoding." >> >> > >Is anyone disagreeing with that assertion? I hear it >from a lot of apparently independent sources. >Presumably we'll see data at the "Binary Infoset >Serialization" workshop next week. > Just got back from some travels, so here's my belated contribution to the thread, arbitrarily responding to this one post... It's clear that transformations of XML into alternative representations can result in substantial increases in performance over conventional text parsers (at least for Java), and can also result in substantial reductions in document size. I haven't personally investigated the innards of the parsers to see how well they've been structured for performance. This is an area that's gotten a lot of attention over the last few years, though. Given that there are some very sharp people working in the parser area I suspect performance is approaching optimal, and I've based my investigations on that assumption. I have a hard time communicating with the hard-core text backers who appear to see any transformation of XML (other than gzip, which apparently is blessed by virtue of predating XML itself) as inherently evil. It's all just bits on the wire (or voltage levels, or photons, or ...), after all, and if a transform that's based on XML structure can deliver good performance results it seems worth a look. My personal preference is for transforms that preserve the XML Infoset, but Schema-based transformations such as the one used by Sun can probably get about twice the overall performance of Infoset-preserving transforms such as my own XBIS (http://xbis.sourceforge.net) for SOAP-type applications (assuming relatively heavy use of numeric values). Both types are probably worth considering. Either way, if a tool is available that converts the transformed document back into XML that's equivalent (modulo canonicalization) to the original document, does the fact that the transformed representation uses funny bit fields or binary values really matter? It seems to me that it's just another processing step in a pipeline. - Dennis
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format