[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Rich Salz wrote:
>I was assuming most clients aren't getting XML and using it to generate
>new XML. Instead, that they have a handful of local data, and they
>are generating XML from that. I was also assuming that any native
>datatype already had a "convert to string" funcdtionality.
>
>
This is exactly what's done with data binding, and at least in my tests
I haven't seen that data binding output is much faster than input (even
in the case of my own JiBX framework).
I suspect I could double the performance if I wrote custom code for an
application that went directly to text and did it's own buffering
(assuming I knew the data would always be free of characters requiring
special handling). But then I could also double the input performance if
I did the equivalent custom parser for input (basically just ignoring
all the complexities of XML that I don't want to support, the same as
I'd be doing on the output). Maybe that's not a fair comparison, but I
think the basic point still holds - the inherent difference in
processing XML as input vs. output is not large. In any case, I'd expect
that at this point of time somewhere upwards of 90% of XML is generated
through some sort of framework, not by printf or equivalents (though if
the Microsoft crew is correct about RSS being the top XML application I
may be wrong on this - judging from what little I've seen of RSS much of
it appears to be generated in this manner).
- Dennis
--
Dennis M. Sosnoski
Enterprise Java, XML, and Web Services
Training and Consulting
http://www.sosnoski.com
Redmond, WA 425.885.7197
|
