From fork-admin@xent.com Tue Sep 3 14:24:06 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: yyyy@localhost.example.com Received: from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1]) by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5FEA16F3A for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 14:22:41 +0100 (IST) Received: from jalapeno [127.0.0.1] by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0) for jm@localhost (single-drop); Tue, 03 Sep 2002 14:22:41 +0100 (IST) Received: from xent.com ([64.161.22.236]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g82NOvZ25819 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 00:24:57 +0100 Received: from lair.xent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xent.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C612C2940ED; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 16:22:02 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: fork@example.com Received: from mithral.com (watcher.mithral.com [204.153.244.1]) by xent.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E7D342940AC for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 16:21:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 7871 invoked by uid 1111); 2 Sep 2002 23:24:05 -0000 From: "Adam L. Beberg" To: "Reza B'Far (eBuilt)" Cc: Subject: RE: Java is for kiddies In-Reply-To: Message-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: fork-admin@xent.com Errors-To: fork-admin@xent.com X-Beenthere: fork@example.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Friends of Rohit Khare List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 16:24:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-10.8 required=7.0 tests=AWL,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,KNOWN_MAILING_LIST, QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,SPAM_PHRASE_01_02,USER_AGENT_PINE version=2.41-cvs X-Spam-Level: On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Reza B'Far (eBuilt) wrote: > With the increasing prevalence of web services (not that they are always a > good thing), I doubt that parsing XML will be something that will remain at > the Java application layer for long... Recent threads here on Fork > indicating the move towards hardware parsing or this code even become part > of the native implementation of Java on various platforms... OK, so, you get the XML toss it through hardware and turn it back into a struct/object whatever you call your binary data. I agree this is the way things will go, as XML parsing has just too much overhead to survive in the application layer. So why turn it into XML in the first place? Becasue it gives geeks something to do and sells XML hardware accelerators and way more CPUs? Is there anyone out there actually doing anything new that actually IMPROVES things anymore, or are they all too scared of the fact that improvements put people out of work and cut #1 is the creators... - Adam L. "Duncan" Beberg http://www.mithral.com/~beberg/ beberg@mithral.com