On Sun, 2005-02-06 at 13:02 -0800, Reid Pinchback wrote: > --- Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I stopped using belief as a measurement of code a long time > > > ago. Usually only works when I wrote all the code. :-) > > > I'll cook up an experiment and see what I can come up with > > > in the way of timing information. > > > > That would be excellent. I look forward to seeing the results.. > > Actually, an experiment implies a question to be answered, and > while this has been an interesting back-and-forth, not sure > we really have a question to answer. This whole thing began > with me simply asking a question about something you'd > put in your readme file on the upcoming work. Practically > I don't see you not expecting a namespace-aware parser, the > question is really more one of the user of Digester2 deciding > if they are using namespace features. While we could do > timing tests to help people understand what the impact may > or may not be of using NS in the documents they parse, it > obviously has nothing to do with whether or not you are > going to expect a parser to handle NS if the docs contain NS. > That will be the developer's problem, not yours, yes?
Hi Reid, I don't quite understand the above. You mean these are the questions? * should people avoid creating xml documents that use namespaces if they care about the performance of later parsing the doc? * Is there a significant performance benefit in parsing non-namespaced xml with a non-namespace-aware parser? * Is there a significant performance benefit in parsing namespace-using-xml with a non-namespace-aware parser (yecch!). The first is an interesting question, and is partially related to the third one in that it gives people an *option* (though not a good one IMHO) to parse the document fast. But mostly I agree this is the developer's problem, not digester's. Tf we can give a hint somewhere in our docs about parser performance with/without ns, though, I'm sure people would appreciate it. For either of the second, the answer is relevant to digester; if the answer to either is yes, then I would support allowing a non-namespace-aware parser to be used with digester. By support, I mean writing code that allows instantiation of ns-aware or non-ns-aware parser, code that looks for localname/qname, support in the RuleManager classes for matching such elements, and unit tests to test it all. Currently, I'm not hugely motivated to test either of the last two scenarios, as I *believe* the answer to both is no, but if someone else does I'll look at the results with interest. Is this what you meant? Regards, Simon --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
