Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
David Megginson wrote: > Matthew.Bennett@f... writes: > > Why parse repeatedly, if it's so damned inefficient? Why not come > > up with the concept of a 'compiled' xml document; one where > > structural info. is stored, and access is *FAST*, and validity and > > well-formedness have already been 'certified'? No-one's surprised > > that interpretive languages are execution dogs compared to compiled > > versions (because of no on-going parsing!), so why the mock horror > > that interpretive XML is so inefficient? > > This is not a new idea, but despite many bold attempts and breathless > announcements, in five years no one has come up with anything that has > caught on. In fact, things have caught on under the hood here and there, without making much fuss. For instance Cocoon has cXML and Perl has XML::Filter::Cache both of which store a simple list of SAX events in order to simulate a parse, only faster. In the wild, you will find a variety of more or less ad hoc solutions to the same problem. What is true however is that no interoperable solution has been devised yet. -- Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...> Research Engineer, Expway http://expway.fr/ 7FC0 6F5F D864 EFB8 08CE 8E74 58E6 D5DB 4889 2488
|
