[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
David Megginson wrote:
> Robin Berjon writes:
> > Please describe what a "realistic use case" is to you, and time
> > allowing I'll be happy to oblige. I'd also be glad to know what in
> > the use cases that have already been cited many times in this
> > permathread is not realistic.
>
> Your cases are fine: just make sure that you use an environment
> and data similar to what you'll use in the real world (for example, if
> the data will be coming over the net from outside the firewall, test
> that way).
Yes, that's what we've done naturally. For SOAP we've tested it in situations
described by our customers (often EAI-style stuff). For broadcast we can
reproduce a variety of situations to match varying needs. The results are rather
clear.
> In the past, I've observed that actual XML parsing generally accounts
> for under 1% of a batch application's running time (much less, if
> you're building a big object tree or doing any database access). That
> means that if you speed up the XML parsing by 10%, you might have sped
> up your application by less than 0.1% (or realistically, not at all,
> if the parser was already idling waiting for data over the network).
Obviously! There's a reason why despite the fact that my box is littered with
all sorts of fun binfoset tools I use XML almost exclusively ;) The idea is
simply to make it possible for people to keep using all the XML Unicode text
goodness even when a step in their workflow makes it impractical/impossible,
*not*at*all* to compete with XML. I wish the pollution-and-doom mongerers would
give more thought to that aspect.
--
Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
Research Engineer, Expway http://expway.fr/
7FC0 6F5F D864 EFB8 08CE 8E74 58E6 D5DB 4889 2488
|
