[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Dec 2, 2004, at 10:39 AM, Daniela Florescu wrote:
>> In reality, sometimes folks use A, sometimes A in combination with B,
>> and sometimes all of them together, for various subproblems within
>> the overall application. To summarize, there seems more value in
>> integrating tools with different strengths and weaknesses than in
>> separating them.
>
> In theory you are perfectly right. Each tool has strengths and
> weaknesses and it would
> be great to mix and match.
>
> But unless implemented correctly this can yield to a performance
> catastrophe.
>
> Unless ALL tools are implemented to work on the same physical
> representation for
> XML, you'll spend all your time copying and converting the data
> between various
> physical formats (e..g. one consumes and produces SAX, the other one
> expects a DOM and the
> last one wants a JSR 173).
>
> I've been there while in BEA.
>
> Best regards,
> Dana
At the API level they are already pretty seamlessly integrated, and
really easy to use.
If "fast" is anyone's favourite property: At the implementation level
more work remains to be done (and is being done - e.g. watch out for
XQuery directly executed over binary xml), but for the most important
use cases we either a) mostly eliminate converting or b) make
converting extremely fast. The common physical representation for all
of this is XOM.
IMHO, the practise is not so far from the theory.
Wolfgang.
|
