[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 13:41, Tim Bray wrote:
>
>>>
>> 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.
>
That's precisely what we are doing - option [1] for interfacing with
external components, [2-3-4] for in-process components. I think of it as
not so much losing a document, more like gaining an infoset. Some of
these are areas that just wouldn't be viable for fully serialised XML.
Who's claiming a place on the short list of the net's highest-throughput
XML applications nowadays?
Francis.
|
