I would log some of your PHP then. I would fully expect parsing to take way
more time than loading. But given your latest bit of info I would lay my
money on the dynamic generation of the XML.
Charles P.
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:42 AM, Matt S. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, its definitely i
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Gregory Boland
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you allowed to put html tags in an attribute? Like a tag? I would
> think that < in the attribute would screw it up.
>
> Why not just taking some of those longer string attributes and make them
> nodes and wrap them
Are you allowed to put html tags in an attribute? Like a tag? I would
think that < in the attribute would screw it up.
Why not just taking some of those longer string attributes and make them
nodes and wrap them in CDATA?
Just a thought
greg
On 10/30/08 11:42 AM, "Matt S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
No, its definitely in the loading, i've got it tracing out in the
flash and all the delay is happening during the initial load of the
XML, not during the parsing. But the actual live load is from php, eg
"../tommunro_v2_xml.php" so it may be when the php is parsing the XML
and generating it.
.m
O
Hi,
its only 60kb?
That shouldn't take too long.
Can you see what is taking up the time? Might be parsing instead of loading.
regards,
JC
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Matt S. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So I know this is kind of a mammoth XML file to load all at once, but
> it doesnt seem
So I know this is kind of a mammoth XML file to load all at once, but
it doesnt seem THAT big, but its taking longer than expected. Can
anyone look at this XML and suggest any ways to optimize it, that dont
involve breaking it up into multiple files?
http://knowawall.com/dev/tommunro/tommunro_xml2
6 matches
Mail list logo
