Hi Daniel,
So if I have two files... same format... but one is twice as big as
the other... the bigger file isn't going to take longer to load?
Irrelevant example. The fact that a bigger file loads slower doesn't
mean that the fault is on the size of the tag. There are several things
that increase with the size of the file. For example, the number of
elements, the complexity of the tree, the amount of content, etc. All of
those can cause a slowdown and they are unrelated to the size of the tag.
I'm kicking myself for taking part in this argument, but honestly I
think you're being a bit unreasonable here. Even if, as you say (and as
is true), the tag name doesn't have any bearing on the size of the
document representation in memory (because the actual tag string is only
used in conjunction with the file I/O), each character of the tag has to
be read from the hard drive and inspected while parsing the XML file,
which might (keyword, might) have an impact on the time taken to do that
operation (which is if I understand correctly what we're talking about).
As Rod was suggesting, were the tags to be 1MB each, the loading of the
file would presumably be impacted quite negatively. The real question,
however, is whether having one or ten characters in the tag makes any
significant difference in the current parsing process, which quite
frankly I have no idea about and would need to be measured before it's
overly debated, if you want my opinion.
End of my two cents,
Cyrille
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
