RE: [Flashcoders] XML and best method
I think it depends on how much data there would be in one big file, and how complex it would be loading in separate other files - how big each of those would be. I would try and keep it all in one file if possible, but if it's a huge amount of data, I would separate them and load them one at a time - you could build a cool loader animation for them. Also, consider the content of the XML - if it's all related, makes sense to have them in the same file, but if the XML server totally different purposes, I think it can make sense to make the files separate. For example: settings.xml --- application settings media.xml --application content services.xml --application web services But then those are OK to all put in the same file too so it's both an architecture performance question, and also a style question. Be careful of creating references in one XML to another, that can get messy and buggy unless you do it right - doesn't mean it's bad, it just depends on how you implement it. Jason Merrill Bank of America Enterprise Technology Global Risk LLD Instructional Technology Media Join the Bank of America Flash Platform Developer Community Are you a Bank of America associate interested in innovative learning ideas and technologies? Check out our internal Innovative Learning Blog subscribe. ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] XML and best method
Speaking from recent experience, lots of little XML files is ok if you're accessing them one at a time, but if you need to pull up more than one at a time, it can get slow quick. I had a project where I had to load 5-10 small xmls (really small, just basic image galleries, 10 items max each), and it seemed like the initial process of loading the XML files (load one, increment xml ID, load the next, etc) was the lions share of the load time, so that when it was 10 xmls at once it started to take annoyingly long (especially since that was then followed by the actual images needing to be loaded). In the end we compiled all the xmls into one big XML and loaded that up front. But on other projects, when I was just loading single small xml files one at a time, it wasnt a problem. I would be curious though, my impression from that experience was that alot of the load time on an XML file comes from that initial loading of the file, not so much the stepping through the XML, is that accurate? And is there any difference in load time between this: image pathimageurl/path nameimagename.jpg/name width800/width height600/height /image vs this: image path=imageurl name=imagename.jpg width=800 height=600 / .m On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Lehr, Theodore M (N-SGIS) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a project that involves xml... I am wondering how I should organize my xml... would it be best (from a flash perspective) for it to be on huge xml file with lots and lots of children - or would I be better off breaking it into multiple xml files where one xml tag references another xml file and so on... ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] XML and best method
yes the second one is shorter :) i try to keep child nodes to a minimum - 1 per 'object' and only really use them when describing one of several same-level objects On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Matt S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Speaking from recent experience, lots of little XML files is ok if you're accessing them one at a time, but if you need to pull up more than one at a time, it can get slow quick. I had a project where I had to load 5-10 small xmls (really small, just basic image galleries, 10 items max each), and it seemed like the initial process of loading the XML files (load one, increment xml ID, load the next, etc) was the lions share of the load time, so that when it was 10 xmls at once it started to take annoyingly long (especially since that was then followed by the actual images needing to be loaded). In the end we compiled all the xmls into one big XML and loaded that up front. But on other projects, when I was just loading single small xml files one at a time, it wasnt a problem. I would be curious though, my impression from that experience was that alot of the load time on an XML file comes from that initial loading of the file, not so much the stepping through the XML, is that accurate? And is there any difference in load time between this: image pathimageurl/path nameimagename.jpg/name width800/width height600/height /image vs this: image path=imageurl name=imagename.jpg width=800 height=600 / .m On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Lehr, Theodore M (N-SGIS) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a project that involves xml... I am wondering how I should organize my xml... would it be best (from a flash perspective) for it to be on huge xml file with lots and lots of children - or would I be better off breaking it into multiple xml files where one xml tag references another xml file and so on... ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] XML and best method
I have a project that involves xml... I am wondering how I should organize my xml... would it be best (from a flash perspective) for it to be on huge xml file with lots and lots of children - or would I be better off breaking it into multiple xml files where one xml tag references another xml file and so on... There is no hard and fast answer. My personal preference is to have fewer XML files--one is ideal, because then you only have one to download. And XML files are just text, so it typically takes less time than a single audio file. If you're using AS3, you can use the XML and XMLList classes to break the file into manageable chunks. It's very fast. It depends on how big the file is, though. If it's really huge and complex, it can be cumbersome to maintain, and difficult for the next programmer to grok. It's your call ^_^ Cordially, Kerry Thompson ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] XML and best method
Thanks. Do you know if the difference is dramatic? Just curious, especially since most experts eg Moock's books dont shy away from node-heavy XML generally, but if there are serious performance considerations you'd think they would. .m On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 10:27 AM, allandt bik-elliott (thefieldcomic.com) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: yes the second one is shorter :) i try to keep child nodes to a minimum - 1 per 'object' and only really use them when describing one of several same-level objects On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Matt S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Speaking from recent experience, lots of little XML files is ok if you're accessing them one at a time, but if you need to pull up more than one at a time, it can get slow quick. I had a project where I had to load 5-10 small xmls (really small, just basic image galleries, 10 items max each), and it seemed like the initial process of loading the XML files (load one, increment xml ID, load the next, etc) was the lions share of the load time, so that when it was 10 xmls at once it started to take annoyingly long (especially since that was then followed by the actual images needing to be loaded). In the end we compiled all the xmls into one big XML and loaded that up front. But on other projects, when I was just loading single small xml files one at a time, it wasnt a problem. I would be curious though, my impression from that experience was that alot of the load time on an XML file comes from that initial loading of the file, not so much the stepping through the XML, is that accurate? And is there any difference in load time between this: image pathimageurl/path nameimagename.jpg/name width800/width height600/height /image vs this: image path=imageurl name=imagename.jpg width=800 height=600 / .m On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Lehr, Theodore M (N-SGIS) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a project that involves xml... I am wondering how I should organize my xml... would it be best (from a flash perspective) for it to be on huge xml file with lots and lots of children - or would I be better off breaking it into multiple xml files where one xml tag references another xml file and so on... ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] XML and best method
there might be - for loops are a pretty slow way of accessing an array for instance (although they look lovely and keep things neat) - it's actually faster to add each node of an array manually so in theory, the fewer times the app has to loop through large nests of xml (similar process), the better. for really large xml files, i suppose the extra file weight of the extra verbosity (is that a word?) of a heavy nest over one that makes more use of attributes might make a difference in load times as well although i think it'd have to be a seriously large file (or for a seriously slow connection) to really be a consideration that said, i would use a child node for large amounts of text / data - you wouldn't put a whole paragraph into an attribute, for instance. Nor would you want to put html formatted text into an attribute (i don't even think you can?) so: ?xml version=1.0 encoding=UTF-8? trainupdate result=success currtime=1219755890344 targettime=122002920 distance=180 weather=rain winddir=45 windspeed=18 train position=26 speed=40 departing=Departing 1pm stoptext=Leaves on line / Here is a paragraph of copy describing the function and focus of the train in question. I could go on like this for hours. Would you like me to? /train train position=65 speed=60 departing=Departing 3pm stoptext=Signal failure / Not as much but we're following a precedent /train /trainupdate On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 6:05 PM, Matt S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks. Do you know if the difference is dramatic? Just curious, especially since most experts eg Moock's books dont shy away from node-heavy XML generally, but if there are serious performance considerations you'd think they would. .m On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 10:27 AM, allandt bik-elliott (thefieldcomic.com) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: yes the second one is shorter :) i try to keep child nodes to a minimum - 1 per 'object' and only really use them when describing one of several same-level objects On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Matt S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Speaking from recent experience, lots of little XML files is ok if you're accessing them one at a time, but if you need to pull up more than one at a time, it can get slow quick. I had a project where I had to load 5-10 small xmls (really small, just basic image galleries, 10 items max each), and it seemed like the initial process of loading the XML files (load one, increment xml ID, load the next, etc) was the lions share of the load time, so that when it was 10 xmls at once it started to take annoyingly long (especially since that was then followed by the actual images needing to be loaded). In the end we compiled all the xmls into one big XML and loaded that up front. But on other projects, when I was just loading single small xml files one at a time, it wasnt a problem. I would be curious though, my impression from that experience was that alot of the load time on an XML file comes from that initial loading of the file, not so much the stepping through the XML, is that accurate? And is there any difference in load time between this: image pathimageurl/path nameimagename.jpg/name width800/width height600/height /image vs this: image path=imageurl name=imagename.jpg width=800 height=600 / .m On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Lehr, Theodore M (N-SGIS) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a project that involves xml... I am wondering how I should organize my xml... would it be best (from a flash perspective) for it to be on huge xml file with lots and lots of children - or would I be better off breaking it into multiple xml files where one xml tag references another xml file and so on... ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] XML and best method
Thanks. Do you know if the difference is dramatic? Just curious, especially since most experts eg Moock's books dont shy away from node-heavy XML generally, but if there are serious performance considerations you'd think they would. I don't think the difference is dramatic. It may be noticeable in a very large XML file, but not dramatic. The thing to remember is that, while the XML classes are in machine language, and very efficient, you are parsing text, which is always inefficient. If performance is an issue, you want as little text (XML) as possible. The XML classes may be doing something under the hood to optimize that, but there's no getting away from the fact that accessing XML involves parsing text. The books on Flash may not be the best references for XML. They are oriented to teaching you ActionScript, and their XML structures are often driven more by what they are teaching than by XML best practices. If you really want to learn about preferred styles, and things like advantages of attributes vs. child nodes, I'd pick up a book specifically on XML. I'm afraid I can't recommend one--I've been doing XML so long I've lost touch with the references--but I'm sure some people here or over on Flash_Tiger can recommend good XML references. Cordially, Kerry Thompson ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] XML and best method
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 1:25 PM, allandt bik-elliott (thefieldcomic.com) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: that said, i would use a child node for large amounts of text / data - you wouldn't put a whole paragraph into an attribute, for instance. Nor would you want to put html formatted text into an attribute (i don't even think you can?) When we need to pass in html text via an xml attribute we use urlencoded text, which works pretty well. .m ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
