[XML-SIG] SAX 2.0 names

Lars Marius Garshol larsga@garshol.priv.no
01 Mar 2000 11:09:57 +0100

* Greg Stein
| I'm all for using tuples. If somebody wants extended capabilities
| through the use of objects, then they can use them on top of
| tuples. If you start with objects, then you've set a minimum. 

This is a very good point.  I've also been thinking that instead of
mandating tuples, perhaps we should say that you have to use something
that behaves like tuples with respect to indexing, comparison,
decomposition and indexing, but can also offer more.

That way one can use more than

| The reason they seem small is because the "benchmark" is bogus. You
| have a HUGE constant factor. Just look at the thing: hundreds of
| lines. Classes here and there, function calls over that way, etc.

It's definitely bogus in the sense that as a comparison of the
efficiency of tuples versus strings the difference is lost in the

However, in another sense it isn't bogus at all because it indicates
that the performance difference between strings/tuples is so small
compared to the overheads of parsing and the application itself that
it doesn't really matter what we choose.
| If you want to truly benchmark the varieties, then initialize a
| number of sample objects and time their *usage*. Alternatively, you
| can time their *construction* from some fake data.

We could do this as well, but that would really be a benchmark with a
different goal.

| And besides... performance isn't everything. The use of tuples is
| clean and straight-forward. That counts for quite a lot. The fact
| that it appears they are more efficient (based on your rough test)
| is just another wonderful boon for them.


--Lars M.