RE: 1 pass vs 2 pass

• From: Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>
• Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 10:22:08 -0400
• To: "'Meiko Jensen'" <Meiko.Jensen@ruhr-uni-bochum.de>, "'Pratik Datta'" <pratik.datta@oracle.com>
• Cc: <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <02da01cb3960$95124fc0$bf36ef40$@osu.edu>

> I'm still in favor of a one-pass solution, for the following reason:

To be clear, I have no dog in this hunt. I don't expect to work on a
streaming implementation; it isn't realistic for my needs or my project's
resources. We're DOM based, focused on enveloped (SAML) and ID-based
signatures, and I expect to stay there for the foreseeable future.

I just wanted to highlight what sounded like a pretty big issue to nail down
before we get too far into the XPath details.

To inject a totally uninformed opinion, it seemed odd to me to talk about
2-pass streaming, given what I thought the point of it was, but I guess it's
just a matter of degree. You still avoid the cost of the DOM, but you
obviously can't handle really huge documents well.
 
-- Scott

Received on Wednesday, 11 August 2010 14:22:42 UTC