=?UTF-8?Q?Re:_Java=E2=80=99s_Future_Lies_In_Mobile?= =?UTF-8?Q?=3F?=

From:

"Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com>

Newsgroups:

comp.lang.java.programmer

Date:

Sat, 12 Mar 2011 08:00:55 -0800

Message-ID:

<ilh167$rvi$1@news.eternal-september.org>

"Lew" <noone@lewscanon.com> wrote in message
news:ilg26o$3hk$1@news.albasani.net...

Joshua Cranmer wrote:

Pretty-printed verbose XML is larger than the tightest, most illegible
XML by
a factor of 5, if not larger; even the tightest XML is larger than a
well-designed binary format by around a factor of 5-10. You can store
time
within second precision in 4 bytes in binary, but the same value (without
delimiters) is 15 bytes in plain text and 20 bytes in a more readable
format.
And then you have to waste space on the XML structure information which
is
implied by the binary format.

So?

I was asking about performance, not size. As mentioned, ZIP handles the
performance implications of the size just fine.

The communications implications of size. It increases CPU usage, since it
adds the need to zip and unzip the message, and doesn???t affect the memory
usage, since after unzipping it's the same size as before. XML is also
fairly expensive to parse, and not that cheap to produce, largely because of
the need to check each string for characters that need to be escaped. .

The most efficient way to handle XML that I know of is Fastinofset. No
escaping, no character-by-character parsing, nothing as cpu-intensive as zip
or unzip, and roughly the same amount of compression.