[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 13:41, Tim Bray wrote:
> At 10:52 AM 04/03/02 +0000, Francis Norton wrote:
> >Yes - you can implement XML interfaces between components in at least four ways:
> >
> >[1] pass an XML document
> >[2] pass an XML DOM
> >[3] pass a schema-equivalent programming language object (using tools for automatic schema <-> class conversion)
> >[4] pass an event stream
> >
> >Our experiences suggest that [3] and [4] are best for high-volume performance-critical server-side finance applications.
>
> You're buying some performance. You're giving up a lot of the
> things that make XML worthwhile, in particular no binary
> dependencies on any particular hardware, OS, or whatever.
> Your call. But it feels like a lousy bargain, architecturally,
> compared to [1]. -Tim
If they're just passing the information within a single program or a
single pipeline (think a stack of SAX filters), then [2-3-4] make sense.
Once you cross that boundary (which can be kind of blurry), then you're
completely right that [1] offers the most flexibility by far.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com
|
