Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: James Robertson <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 11:56:05 +1000
At 19:11 2/02/1999 , Matthew Sergeant (EML) wrote:
| > I would personally recommend a third option:
| > 3) Store in RDBMS now, process into XML, process this into HTML now.
| > Process the XML into whatever you want in the future.
| Nonononono. :)
| This generates probably 5% more overhead than I have already (the
| RDBMS). XML doesn't parse quickly (well, OK, it parses quickly, but not
| compared to reading data from an RDBMS). When you are processing tens
| files per second this becomes a huge problem.
Well, I guess you have to balance elegance & expandability vs raw
performance. Not an uncommon trade-off ...
But, that being said ...
Creating XML from an RDBMS is very quick, particularly when you
do it using straightforward non-XML code.
True, XML->HTML is not as quick as would be liked, but it
again depends on the nature of the work. If your HTML needs
a lot of complex cross-linking, tables of contents, navigation
bars, etc, then doing this straight from the RDBMS can be
a real bitch.
Also, the speed of processing XML will depend on the tool.
Have you considered using something like Omnimark, instead
of DOM, etc?
Just some more food for thought,
Step Two Designs Pty Ltd
SGML, XML & HTML Consultancy
"Beyond the Idea"
ACN 081 019 623
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:email@example.com
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org)