[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
With all due respect, it is not. People already working on aspects of
the problem won't be discouraged by a contest that targets the entire
problem. And, contest aside, everyone would benefit from a widely
accepted set of performance benchmarks.
Bob
Tatu Saloranta wrote:
> --- Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>>That is why, ultimately, the current XML efficiency
>>problem is not with
>>technology: not APIs, algorithms, CPU instruction
>>sets. The XML
>>efficiency problem is with motivating researchers
>>and open source
>>developers into areas that match corporate business
>>requirements.
>
>
> With all due respect, this is undermining existing
> efforts that do try to address various problems.
> Many of people discussing approaches are actively
> working on various parts of the problem; although I'm
> most familiar with Wolfgang's and Michael's work, I am
> sure others are as well. And at least these two seem
> to be doing quite well in their respective fields.
>
> Also, even if we disagree to a degree on relative
> merits of various points of optimizations, I doubt any
> one of us is convinced to stop working on our
> 'favourite' areas, perceived bottlenecks. If someone
> wants to focus on perfecting byte-by-byte level
> close-to-hardware utf-8 - to - xml - tokens
> transcoding, great! Once results are in, we'll see the
> benefits. If outsiders think this is a stumbling block
> then so be it: I am less worried about perception than
> actual motion towards the goal. But then again, xml is
> just a hobby for me, not my bread and butter.
>
> Finally, not all progress is done in public by
> (academic) researchers, either. If and when there are
> business opportunities (which seems to be the case for
> efficient xml message processing -- IBM is making
> killing selling their expensive hardware, n'est pas?),
> there is and will be progress. Value of prices like
> X-prices, or D-Arpa's vehicle challenge, is lately
> hyped to stratosphere. It will take a while to
> objectively evaluate true value. So while here, too, I
> think it would be interesting to see some prices, I do
> not see lack of such prices as a block that prevents
> progress. But if such prices come available, great;
> the more approaches the merrier!
>
> -+ Tatu +-
|
