W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > September 2001

Re: sparse arrays - too complex?

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@idoox.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 15:44:01 +0200 (CEST)
To: Rich Salz <rsalz@zolera.com>
cc: Alan Kent <ajk@mds.rmit.edu.au>, SOAP <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0109211522160.25011-100000@mail.idoox.com>
 Rich,
 I see how I may seem to be unfair. 8-)
 I like "two-state arrays" because it is easy to implement and
can be more efficient than sending "a zillion" nils.
 I would like "three-state arrays" because they can be much more
efficient in sending "diff" arrays, but I see this as being on
too high a level. SOAP doesn't even have native maps (associative
arrays) and I value maps much higher than "diff" arrays.
 And, "real sparse arrays are too complicated" as well. 8-)
 So my key point is that a "diff" array is a higher-level
specialized structure and as therefore it's not the role of SOAP
to define it.
 Best regards

                            Jacek Kopecky

                            Idoox
                            http://www.idoox.com/



On Fri, 21 Sep 2001, Rich Salz wrote:

 > You're not being fair. :)
 >
 > You like "two-state arrays" because it can be more efficient than
 > sending "a zillion" elements with xsi:nil.  But then you say
 > "three-state arrays" can be done by serializing the diff -- which
 > results in what you don't like for two-state!
 >
 > Now, I understand that you can still say "real sparse arrays are too
 > complicated," but I do want to make sure I understand the key point of
 > your argument.
 > 	/r$
 >
Received on Friday, 21 September 2001 09:44:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:03 GMT