- From: K. Ari Krupnikov <ari@iln.net>
- Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 12:53:26 -0800
- To: Joseph Kesselman <keshlam@us.ibm.com>
- CC: www-dom@w3.org
Joseph Kesselman wrote: > > >"The DOM implementation may not put arbitrary limits on the amount of > >data that may be stored in a CharacterData node." > >The Java bindings specify that CharacterData.getLenght() return int. > >Is there an implicit assumption that in Java a CharacterData would not > >exceed 2Gb? > > Yes, the standard Java bindings make that assumption. Other bindings may > bind the IDL "int" to other datatypes, of course. > > Frankly, if you've got a single CharacterData that contains more than 2GB, > it is extremely unlikely that _any_ off-the-shelf XML software will handle > it, and one can argue that you were foolish to embed that much unstructured > data in an XML document in the first place. I certainly agree. The reason I asked is that I'm working on an SQL-based implementation with Java wrappers, and there 2 GB CharacterData _are_ possible, if ill-advised. I was wondering if I should limit the size of CharacterData to the maximum size of VARCHAR (or clob) field (1GB in PostgreSQL), or normalize CharacterData into a one-to-many with its parent. And then the int question came up. Would limiting CharacterData to 1GB be reasonable? What would you consider to be a 'practical' limit? -- K. Ari Krupnikov DBDOM - bridging XML and relational databases http://www.iter.co.il
Received on Tuesday, 20 February 2001 15:52:52 UTC