WDDX is just one of many XML grammars (languages). WDDX is designed to
be able to pass complex data structures between computers. If this is
all you are doing, then WDDX is great.
The built in WDDX stuff in CF will probably be a lot faster then trying
to do it with MSXML, which is a general purpose XML parser. This is
because all it knows how to do is serialize and deserialize a single XML
grammar - WDDX.
But, if you want to start working with other XML grammars, then you
can't use the built in WDDX stuff. For these other things, such as
SOAP, or XSLT, or any of the other major XML 'standards', you are going
to need to use a general purpose parser - and MSXML is probably the
fastest and easiest to use, at least on Windows.
Bill Holloway wrote:
>
> I'm having a hard time figuring out what the motivation is for going
> over to the SOXML architecture (or something similar) versus using WDDX.
> I've done some very simple benchmarking comparing the two as follows:
>
> 1) Given a CF Object, encode it (CF2XML vs. CF2WDDX)
>
> 2) Deserialize it/parse it and display node values (XML2DOM vs. WDDX2CF)
>
> I've found wddx methods to be about twice as fast. I'm using the latest
> MSXML parser (4.0). My impression was that the MSXML parser would
> perform better that the <cfwddx> tags. Given that this is not the case,
> I trying to determine what is gained by going to a custom DTD as opposed
> to sticking with WDDX. Any insights to this would be greatly
> appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Bill
>
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
