I once had benchmarks comparing XML processing with Saxon/XSLT2 vs hpricot
and nokogiri, and Saxon is the most efficient XML processor there is. I
don't have that data any more though, but that's why I'm not a proponent of
using PHP/Ruby for delivering and manipulating XML content. Each platform
has its pros and cons. I didn't mean to ruffle any feathers with that
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Ross Singer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On May 8, 2012, at 2:01 PM, Ethan Gruber wrote:
> > For what it's worth, I have processed XML in PHP, Ruby, and Saxon/XSLT 2,
> So then explain why LAMP/Rails aren't really options.
> It's hard to see how anybody can recommend node.js (or any other stack)
> based on this statement because without knowing _why_ these are inadequate.
> My guess is that node's XML libraries are also libXML based, just like
> pretty much any other C-based language.
> > but I feel like I'm missing some sort of inside joke here.
> > Thanks for the info. To clarify, I don't develop in java, but deploy
> > well-established java-based apps in Tomcat, like Solr and eXist (and am
> > looking into a java triplestore to run in Tomcat) and write scripts to
> > these web services interact in whichever language seems to be the most
> > appropriate. Node looks like it may be interesting to play around with,
> > but I'm wary of having to learn something completely new, jettisoning
> > application and language I am experienced with, to put a new project into
> > production in the next 4-8 weeks.
> Eh, if your window is 4-8 weeks, then I wouldn't be considering node for
> this project. It does, however, sound like you could really use a new
> project manager, because the one you have sounds terrible.
> > Ethan
> > On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Nate Vack <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Ross Singer <[log in to unmask]>
> >> wrote:
> >>> On May 8, 2012, at 10:17 AM, Ethan Gruber wrote:
> >>>> in. Our data is exclusively XML, so LAMP/Rails aren't really options.
> >>> ^^ Really? Nobody's going to take the bait with this one?
> >> I can't see why they would; parsing XML in ruby is simply not possible.
> >> ;-)
> >> -n