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

Re: Article on nytimes.com about Microsoft

  • From: "Rich Rollman" <richroll@a...>
  • To: "'Alexander Philippou'" <alex@n...>
  • Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 13:46:33 -0700

Re:  Article on nytimes.com about Microsoft
For those of you that may be curious about how EXI will compare to WCF's binary XML and FastInfoset, we posted a set of graphs which show the compactness of AgileDelta's Efficient XML (the basis for the W3C EXI standard) versus Fast Infoset. See http://www.agiledelta.com/product_efx_fi_comp.html
The data behind the graphs comes from independent tests run by the W3C using the EXI Working Group's test framework. As you'll see in the graphs, EXI exceeds or meets the FI's compactness regardless of whether schema information is used to encode the data or not. And Efficient XML was one of the fastest binary XML implementations tested.
  • From: "Alexander Philippou" <alex@n...>
  • To: "'Michael Champion'" <mc@x...>,"'[Public XML Dev]'" <xml-dev@l...>
  • Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 15:57:38 +0300

Michael Champion wrote:
> If performance/scalability/bandwidth conservation is the primary value 
> to consider, use whatever technology your platform offers that is 
> optimized for the application scenario you have.  For web services on 
> .NET, that's WCF's format.

No, Fast Infoset is considerably more compact than WCF's format (again see
http://www.noemax.com/products/fastinfoset/size_comparisons.html) so FI is a
better choice for improving WS performance. And it conforms to an ISO/ITU-T
standard, and can be used with any WCF transport (Http, NetTcp, Soap/Tcp),
and is interoperable with Java and other platforms. IMO for anyone willing
to spend some $ to buy a component it makes much more sense to use FI
instead of WCF's format.

> I do know that we don't consider the WCF wire format a rival to FI or 
> EXI in interop scenarios.  We do want to make .NET the best platform 
> on which to develop and deploy web services, but XML parsing 
> efficiency is a small part of that, and the framework can easily 
> support FI or EXI if one of them emerges as an interoperability 
> standard.

FI not being shipped within .NET does not reduce the fact that FI actually
is supported as an integral part of the framework. .NET is exactly that -- a
framework -- and as such it is open to new technologies being plugged into
it without forcing them on MS. Maybe it would be simpler for MS to just
encourage and assist other vendors to provide additional technologies for
.NET. This would relieve MS from standards fighting and would also help .NET
move forward faster.


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]


Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!

Buy Stylus Studio Now

Download The World's Best XML IDE!

Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!

Don't miss another message! Subscribe to this list today.
First Name
Last Name
Subscribe in XML format
RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3

Stylus Studio has published XML-DEV in RSS and ATOM formats, enabling users to easily subcribe to the list from their preferred news reader application.

Stylus Studio Sponsored Links are added links designed to provide related and additional information to the visitors of this website. they were not included by the author in the initial post. To view the content without the Sponsor Links please click here.

Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member
Stylus Studio® and DataDirect XQuery ™are products from DataDirect Technologies, is a registered trademark of Progress Software Corporation, in the U.S. and other countries. © 2004-2013 All Rights Reserved.