On Sep 12, 1:30 am, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 22:40:01 -0700, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote: > > On 12 Sep 2008 03:37:51 GMT, Steven D'Aprano > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> declaimed the following in > > comp.lang.python: > > >> I'm pretty sure you're wrong. XML can be used for serialization, but > >> that doesn't mean it is only sequential data. XML is suitable for > >> hierarchical data too. To quote Wikipedia: > > > There is a difference between the format of the data content, and > > the processing of that data... Regardless of the content, one > > essentially has to process the XML /file/ sequentially, and translate > > into an in-memory model that allows for accessing said data. To reach > > the nth subelement of the mth element requires reading all 1..m-1 > > elements, followed by all 1..n-1 subelements in m. Modifying any element > > requires rewriting the entire file. > > Which is why I previously said that XML was not well suited for random > access. > > I think we're starting to be sucked into a vortex of obtuse and opaque > communication. We agree that XML can store hierarchical data, and that it > has to be read and written sequentially, and that whatever the merits of > castironpi's software, his original use-case of random access to a 4GB > XML file isn't workable. Yes? > > -- > Steven
By 'isn't workable' do you mean, "no one ever uses 4GB of XML", or "no one ever uses 4GB or hierarchical data period"? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
