3 ms·
In a footnote XML is mentioned as being wasteful on bandwidth but doesn't it compress very well?
by anc84 11y ago
In a footnote XML is mentioned as being wasteful on bandwidth but doesn't it compress very well?
- untitaker_ 11y agoThat's a result of it being bloated, not a feature. By that logic it doesn't matter how bloated dataformats are. EDIT: The big problem with WebDAV is that it's overall so complex that it's hard to implement, and XML doesn't help with that.
- zamalek 11y agoIt compresses extremely well; even if you use a predetermined dictionary (reducing CPU usage). However, because of CPU usage considerations it probably won't ever do as well as high-entropy encodings such as Protobuf because to get truly great compression you simply have to spend the cycles. If you are using XML for the right applications (i.e. not a data firehose) the compression/CPU characteristics shouldn't matter at all. It's when you start using it for high bandwidth scenarios that things become sketchy: you should be negotiating an out-of-band stream (such as SI, Jingle or just a plain old socket) and using that for the firehose. That being said, people like AeroFS supposedly used it as a firehose for years[1] (in the form of XMPP) before having to replace it with a simpler protocol: so there does seem to be some elasticity to that assertion about not using it for a firehose. [1]: https://www.aerofs.com/blog/open-sourcing-the-stupid-simple-messaging-protocol/ https://www.aerofs.com/blog/open-sourcing-the-stupid-simple-...