Geoff If you're going to start without understanding that XML is a standard, we'll be unable to continue. Please note the number of uses of the word standard here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XML
It came about to reduce the flavor-of-the-minute-non-standard styles everybody and his dog comes up with in the name of "efficiency" which just ends up making for more conversion and less performance overall. > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 08:59:05 +1030 > From: "Geoff" <data...@adam.com.au> > Subject: RE: [NF] M$ is pushing ahead for performance > To: profoxt...@leafe.com > Message-ID: <005a01c97697$826116f0$872344...@com.au> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > But you describe XML as a 'standard' approach and call binary non-standard. > By who's definition? My question remains as to why use a format that is > 20times as big as a binary format when there is no real reason. Converting > to XML at the client end isn't hard - it is trivial if that is required. My > question revolves around the transmission of data and why use a verbose > format when binary will do. And why use a verbose format (XML) when its > effect on network and application performance has the potential to be quite > adverse. > > -----Original Message----- > From: profox-boun...@leafe.com [mailto:profox-boun...@leafe.com] On Behalf > Of Mike yearwood > Sent: Thursday, 15 January 2009 4:00 AM > To: profoxt...@leafe.com > Subject: [NF] M$ is pushing ahead for performance > >> Message: 2 >> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 08:08:38 +1030 >> From: "Geoff Flight" <data...@adam.com.au> >> Subject: RE: [NF] M$ is pushing ahead for performance >> To: profoxt...@leafe.com >> Message-ID: <010c01c975c7$4ba55d40$e2f017...@com.au> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >> Never having really written such an app Ive still wondered why you would > use >> XML vs binary. Why would you use a verbose data description in a situation >> where bandwidth is relatively limited? That said, I now need to write a > web >> service and that has convinced me to use binary and not XML. Everyone > raves >> over XML and frankly, I don't get it. IN a closed architecture I see no >> point at all. >> > > Hi Geoff > > There is the benefit of using standard approaches, something far too > often excluded from these discussions. Only a few years ago I saw a > non-standard approach come awfully close to being released into an > environment where it would have killed patients, so I'm really down on > that. > > You could roll your own means of minimizing the data but then it will > only work for you in your "closed" system. Few systems remain closed. > Then you have to add code to convert your closed data to an unclosed > format - perhaps XML - and it's unlikely your code to prepare an XML > file is optimized and free from error. Those both amount to > performance problems, and may even result in bad data. > > Mike Yearwood > Microsoft MVP 2008 - Visual FoxPro > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/38cc26d30901141800q3554b168s3d1ad56538182...@mail.gmail.com ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
