• To: "Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@m...>
• Subject: Re: genx - consensus items
• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 10:19:42 -0800
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>,"David Tolpin" <dvd@d...>
• In-reply-to: <0E36FD96D96FCA4AA8E8F2D199320E52CAC278@R...>
• References: <0E36FD96D96FCA4AA8E8F2D199320E52CAC278@R...>

On Jan 23, 2004, at 10:04 AM, Joshua Allen wrote:

> It's a pretty big hit.  XML is all about string comparison.  Any
> implementation that cared about perf would presumably atomize strings
> that were subject to frequent comparison.

In genx, the only significant string comparison is checking for dupe 
attributes (I think; haven't written the code yet).  Since you only 
check each one once, the cost of doing an intern() (what I assume you 
mean by atomize) is probably higher than just doing the string 
comparison. -Tim

smime.p7s

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: genx - consensus items
    • From: "Karl Waclawek" <karl@w...>
  • Re: genx - consensus items
    • From: David Tolpin <dvd@d...>

• References:
  • RE: genx - consensus items
    • From: "Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: genx - consensus items
• Next by Date: Re: genx - consensus items
• Previous by thread: RE: genx - consensus items
• Next by thread: Re: genx - consensus items
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread