Bazaar on the iPod Touch.

[Robert Collins]

On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 17:08 +1100, Andrew Cowie wrote:
> 
> 
> Usually, XML is either non-optional or worth the cost, but I suppose I
> am moved to ask the Bazaar hackers about their use of XML and whether
> it
> might be a pressure point from a performance perspective? I was a bit
> surprised at what Alexander noted above.

We started with xml as a serialization format because:
 - it was cheap to roll serialisation in
 - it makes a lot of sense for interoperation

Later on we came to the conclusion that 'xml inside' was hurting us, but
moving away from xml to an equivalent line based format wasn't mind
shakingly faster (due to the optimisations we'd done). We also decided
that our internal xml was not what we wanted interoperation to be based
on. The new format Martin mentions *could* be written in xml, but given
that it does hurt us, it seemed like a good opportunity to move away
from it at the same time. It doesn't completely drop xml - revisions are
still xml based, but it does remove half our remaining [default] uses of
it.

-Rob
-- 
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20080109/6054c335/attachment.pgp