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

Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
• From: David Megginson <david@m...>
• Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:46:20 -0500
• In-reply-to: <E18o3KQ-0007I7-00@c...>
• References: <OF047F14BF.0A3C2919-ONCA256CD8.00031C17@f...><E18o1JK-0004N2-00@c...><15964.52445.622746.164350@m...><E18o3KQ-0007I7-00@c...>

Alaric B. Snell writes:

 > If your system spends lots of its time waiting for networking, do
 > you disagree that reducing the bandwidth utilisation would reduce
 > the service round trip time and increase the maximum throughput?

On the other hand, text compresses very well during network transfer,
and XML, particularly so.  That's why we need to run some real-world
tests rather than speculating -- far too many of the mob of existing
XML-related specs have been produced on speculation and wishful
thinking rather than based on experience and proven need.

I have no objection to coming up with better ways of moving
information around, with or without XML, but first I need (a)
credible, repeatable field tests that prove that there's a significant
problem, and then (b) credible, repeatable field tests that prove that
a different format can actually solve those problems.  With those
results in hand, then we can talk about the costs and benefits (and
whether the XML activity is the right place to try to solve the
problem).

 > So to go back to emperical test results...
 > 
 > The ASN.1/XML interop people found that, for data-oriented XML,
 > savings of 80% are common; eg, messages being one fifth the
 > size. Per-packet overheads aside, that would imply that you can fit
 > about five times as many ASN.1/PER encoded messages down a given
 > network connection in a second as you can XML messages.

Thanks.  I'd be interested in seeing a detailed report -- do you have
a URL?


All the best,


David

-- 
David Megginson, david@m..., http://www.megginson.com/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
  • Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
    • From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>

• References:
  • Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
    • From: Matthew.Bennett@f...
  • Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
    • From: "Alaric B. Snell" <alaric@a...>
  • Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>
  • Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
    • From: "Alaric B. Snell" <alaric@a...>

• Prev by Date: RE: The subsetting has begun
• Next by Date: Re: Use cases for parsing efficiency (was Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????)
• Previous by thread: Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
• Next by thread: Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread