Lists Home |
Date Index |
David Megginson wrote:
> Matthew.Bennett@facs.gov.au writes:
> > Why parse repeatedly, if it's so damned inefficient? Why not come
> > up with the concept of a 'compiled' xml document; one where
> > structural info. is stored, and access is *FAST*, and validity and
> > well-formedness have already been 'certified'? No-one's surprised
> > that interpretive languages are execution dogs compared to compiled
> > versions (because of no on-going parsing!), so why the mock horror
> > that interpretive XML is so inefficient?
> This is not a new idea, but despite many bold attempts and breathless
> announcements, in five years no one has come up with anything that has
> caught on.
In fact, things have caught on under the hood here and there, without making
much fuss. For instance Cocoon has cXML and Perl has XML::Filter::Cache both of
which store a simple list of SAX events in order to simulate a parse, only
faster. In the wild, you will find a variety of more or less ad hoc solutions to
the same problem.
What is true however is that no interoperable solution has been devised yet.
Robin Berjon <email@example.com>
Research Engineer, Expway http://expway.fr/
7FC0 6F5F D864 EFB8 08CE 8E74 58E6 D5DB 4889 2488