Arlie Davis wrote:
> I think this entire proposal to move away from XML and to an ad-hoc format
> is a very bad one.
>
> I've seen many projects use XML for large datasets, and do so very
> efficiently. Why not try to improve the existing implementation, rather
> than inventing a new format and going through all the unnecessary pain?
>
I certainly agree in essence, and prophesy lots of horrible problems
because of this change, but ...
> The key to XML (or anything) is usually understanding the data flow of the
> most important performance-sensitive operations, and then structuring your
> implementation around it. If you are concerned about entries files that are
> large enough that using an XML DOM is painful, then use one of the streaming
> XML implementations, which give you a great deal of control over how the
> data is read/written, and when.
>
We already use a SAX parser.
> Abandoning XML without truly compelling reasons is a very bad idea. And if
> performance is so critical, then replace the XML entries file with a
> Berkeley DB file (btree), rather than building yet another hacked-up text
> format. At least with BDB, there's already a solid implementation.
>
I think we'd have already done that if BDB were reliable in combination
with ermote filesystems (e.g., NFS-mounted home directories). AFAIK
that's not even true when using a DB_PRIVATE environment.
-- Brane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Apr 23 09:43:23 2006