On Sep 10, 5:24 am, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 09:26:20 +0200, Fredrik Lundh wrote: > > Steven D'Aprano wrote: > > >> You've created a solution to a problem which (probably) only affects a > >> very small number of people, at least judging by your use-cases. Who > >> has a 4GB XML file > > > Getting 4GB XML files from, say, logging processes or databases that can > > render their output as XML is not that uncommon. They're usually > > record-oriented, and are intended to be processed as streams. And given > > the right tools, doing that is no harder than doing the same to a 4GB > > text file. > > Fair enough, that's a good point. > > But would you expect random access to a 4GB XML file? If I've understood > what Castironpi is trying for, his primary use case was for people > wanting exactly that. > > -- > Steven
Steven, Are you claiming that sequential storage is sufficient for small amounts of data, and relational db.s are necessary for large amounts? It's possible that there is only the fringe exception, in which case 'alloc/free' aren't useful in the majority of cases, and will never win customers away from the more mature competition. Regardless, it is an elegant solution to the problem of storing variable-length strings, with hardly any practical value. Perfect for grad school. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
