Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Alaric B. Snell wrote: > My point was > about people comparing gzipped XML with $binary_format and then saying "See? > Why bother with the binary format? gzipped XML is smaller!". > > My counterthrust being that the non-gzipped binary format will be much less > resource intensive to process, and not much more resource intensive to > transmit over the Internet; and if the latter is a real problem then gzipped > binary will be smaller and easier to process than gzipped xml, if you can > afford to go around gzipping things. Oh I see, sorry I hadn't understood what your point was addressing. It is fairly rare that bin-xml will be larger than the gzip'd XML. Usually that's the worst case scenario (schema-less bin-xml will often produce results within -/+3% of gzip and it hasn't been optimised yet). And of course you're right that when worst case does happen, there's still decoding speed, streaming, etc. -- Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...> Research Engineer, Expway http://expway.fr/ 7FC0 6F5F D864 EFB8 08CE 8E74 58E6 D5DB 4889 2488
|
