Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Lew Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: Interplatform (interprocess, interlanguage) communication Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 12:14:16 -0800 (PST) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 63 Message-ID: <14291890.498.1328991256328.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbr7> References: <26124274.18.1328738542263.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbks5> <4f332c0a$0$288$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <4f345cb4$0$291$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <4f36c569$0$294$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> NNTP-Posting-Host: 173.164.137.214 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1328991256 14959 127.0.0.1 (11 Feb 2012 20:14:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 20:14:16 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <4f36c569$0$294$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=173.164.137.214; posting-account=CP-lKQoAAAAGtB5diOuGlDQk0jIwmH0T User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-Google-Web-Client: true X-Received-Bytes: 3575 Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:11944 On Saturday, February 11, 2012 11:45:42 AM UTC-8, Arne Vajh=F8j wrote: > On 2/10/2012 12:25 PM, BGB wrote: > > On 2/9/2012 4:54 PM, Arne Vajh=F8j wrote: > >> On 2/8/2012 11:10 PM, BGB wrote: > >>> On 2/8/2012 7:14 PM, Arne Vajh=F8j wrote: > >>>> On 2/8/2012 8:49 PM, BGB wrote: > >>>>> say, if one is using XML for compiler ASTs or similar (say, the XML= is > >>>>> used to represent a just-parsed glob of source-code), do they reall= y > >>>>> need any sort of schema? > >>>> > >>>> I would expect syntax trees to follow certain rules and not be free > >>>> form. > >>>> > >>> > >>> well, there are some rules, but the question is more if a schema or t= he > >>> use of validation would offer much advantage to make using it worth t= he > >>> bother?... > >> > >> Enforcing correctness of data is usually a good idea. > >> > > > > potentially, but checking against schemas isn't free. Oh, yeah, micro-optimize that last $0.0000001 of performance. Great thinking. Checking against schemas isn't so expensive, either. You spout this drivel,= =20 BGB, about "isn't free", but where are your numbers? Show us reality, dude = -=20 exactly how "not free" is schema validation, under what loads, on what=20 platforms? Hm? I thought not. >> depending on the application, it could be hard to justify spending the >> extra clock cycles (except maybe for debugging purposes or similar). > How many "extra clock cycles", and does it cost less than the damage your= =20 development techniques cause? > One of the points is that you can validate during integration test > and if you encounter a problem but keep validation turned off otherwise. >=20 > And besides I would assume the big XML parser libraries to have > optimized the validation quite a bit. Given that BGB is just spewing dream talk with zero or less than zero facts= ,=20 evidence or measurement behind it, it's pretty safe to dismiss his=20 "conclusions". or such ... --=20 Lew