Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Typing and paranoia
 Mike Champion wrote: > But the scenario I'm talking about > (see Noah Mendelson's bit, and Gudge's piece that Len quotes) involves > processes that are mostly building synthetic infosets, and > dealing with potentially thousands of messages per second. From what > I'm hearing from developers of high-performance > SOAP processors and XML middleware, that serialize/parse overhead > is significant, and they aren't doing it. They ARE reinventing > wheels, and want to do it just once (or some manageable number). > > My question is "given that they are not doing it with XML syntax, is > the world better off having a larger menu of standardized Infoset > serialization formats for high performance inter-process communication, > or better off letting these people roll their own without the benefit > of standardization" (Or letting them grow their own standards bodies). I suspect such serialization formats are apt to be highly application-specific in their design. I'd need convincing that there's going to be one compact/binary serialization format that's a win across a wide spectrum of application needs. My instinct in this kind of app would be that instead of another serialization format I'd rather work with a nice Object Model with well-thought-through accessors and iterators and so on, so I don't have to *think* about yet another data format. The world has RMI and CORBA and .NET to help do this kind of interfacing. What I'm totally against is polluting the XML brand-name with this kind of short-lived binary construct. Right now, the label "XML" implies a strong set of claims: a high degree of interoperability, good internationalization, lack of vendor lock-in, and good tool availability. Those claims are by & large based on streams of unicode characters with angle-brackets. If you think you're bright enough to invent another interchange format that has a similar value proposition, go ahead and do it. I think it's a *much* harder problem than XML is aimed at, and it's going to be tough. If someone does this and it works, then probably it deserves its own brand name. It might even deserve to share XML's, but that's only after we have a lot more evidence than we do now that the goal is even achievable. -Tim 
|
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
|
|||||||||
