• To: Paul Spencer <xml-dev@b...>
• Subject: Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
• From: Alaric B Snell <alaric@a...>
• Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:11:08 +0100
• Cc: Mike Champion <mc@x...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <NBBBIBMKFOFCNEBAKDPLEEHPGCAA.xml-dev@b...>
• References: <NBBBIBMKFOFCNEBAKDPLEEHPGCAA.xml-dev@b...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030704 Debian/1.4-1

Paul Spencer wrote:

> One of my customers had been using a highly optimized (in their opinion)
> binary format for certain message types for many years. The IT department
> wanted to go XML, the users didn't for performance reasons.
> 
> They tried XML down the wire with very simple compression and found that
> they were transferring data faster than previously.

In which case, they could have tried using simple compression on top of 
their existing binary format and got the same speed increase, and 
probably more, without needing to rewrite their existing format code to 
do XML instead!

You're saying that they changed to another format *and* added 
compression and it got more compact, so the original format is inferior?!?

ABS

• References:
  • RE: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
    • From: "Paul Spencer" <xml-dev@b...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
• Next by Date: Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
• Previous by thread: RE: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
• Next by thread: Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread