Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Tuesday 08 February 2005 04:50 am, Chris Burdess wrote:
> For all documents where you are trying to encode more than 30 car-part
> entries, which you admit is the most likely case, encoding it in XML is
> sending less characters than your non-XML. Using a more compact schema
> language you can reduce this threshold even further.
Why? Are you still using a 300 baud modem? and every bit counts.
These days the performance of a computer system for exchanging
data on product information is not determined by the baud-rate of
the communication lines.
you're just talking hypotheticals based on a one-record one-field example
and trying to extrapolate that to give a theorical speed rating.
These days, data is sent in packets.. not serially... and it's processed
in a number of different ways that mean that a +/- 5-20% difference in
data size makes no difference.
> However, at least in this case the two-file system is considerably
> more *efficient* (for significant numbers of car-parts)
You don't know this. This is just your guess... and I can tell you
that there is a lot more to a real car parts system than simply listing
the names of the items in an xml file.
> and *extensible* (unbounded set of data types) than the
> one-file system.
rather than trying to hype me out.... why not do something a bit
more useful and put together some sort of challenge...
and it needs to have something a bit more useful than a parse
and load into a database.
btw: I refuse to use a 300 baud modem... if you are still using one
then kindly consider getting some decent gear...
Computergrid : The ones with the most connections win.