Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: 'Michael Champion' <email@example.com>, 'XML DEV' <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Validation vs performance - was Re: [xml-dev] Fast text output from SAX?
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 13:48:48 -0500
Yes. Dead on. When where and under what conditions
do applications need alternative formats? Those
who think they need one should be making the cases
for those conditions now.
Here's the shakedown: binaries vs text formats as
Bob W. points out is an old debate. There are:
1. Those who are developing a generalized binary
and want to offer that.
2. Those who are developing an application-specific
binary and are/will use that.
3. Those who believe no genereralized binary will
do the job well-enough for the applications in item
2 to make it worth the costs and disadvantages or
lost advantages of choosing from item 1.
4. Those who think a binary alternative to XML will
be worth the costs and lost advantages in any case.
1 and 2 won't be able to make a case to 4. They may
be able by dint of demonstration make a case for 3
who likely will include elements of 2 already.
Binaries will be and are being developed. This comes
down to generalized vs application-specific binaries.
From: Michael Champion [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
I cringe at the "Right Thing vs the Cowboy Way" characterizations at
various points in this these threads. There are a lot of ways to set up
a business process or transformation/aggregation pipeline to get both
scalability and validity, and recommendations "disallowing" particular
approaches at one step by global fiat are certain to be ignored. It
would be nice to get these threads turned into a discussion of best
practices that people see in real life to find the optimal tradeoffs
between desirable but somewhat incompatible properties such as loose
coupling and high performance ... and away from discussion of alleged
universal principles that should be promoted or disallowed.