 |
 |
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 statement. 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 > make > > 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 > every > > 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. > > -Ross. > > > > > 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 > >> >