Re^2: XML::Fling begone?

Note that I'm proposing this not solely for the speed gains, but also for the added safety afforded by Genx. It offers more of what Fling does well and less of its drawbacks.

Makeshifts last the longest.

Comment on Re^2: XML::Fling begone?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: XML::Fling begone? by demerphq (Chancellor) on Dec 19, 2004 at 17:54 UTC
Its just that XML::FLing is fairly pervasive is all. Also its interface quirks are definately exploited in the code base. Converting wont be straight-forward unfortunately. --- demerphq	[reply]
Re^4: XML::Fling begone? by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Dec 19, 2004 at 18:04 UTC
I know — that's why I tossed this thought out first before I sunk any time into the idea at all. What I'm asking is, do you think it is at all worthwhile to look into this (let alone do it)? Makeshifts last the longest.	[reply]
Re^5: XML::Fling begone? by demerphq (Chancellor) on Dec 19, 2004 at 18:06 UTC
As I said before, it would have to be a lot faster, and solve some problem that we have with XML:Fling to be worthwhile. If the benchmarks showed a signifigant time difference then id say at minimum further research would be warranted. --- demerphq	[reply]
Re^6: XML::Fling begone? by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Dec 19, 2004 at 18:11 UTC
Re^7: XML::Fling begone? by demerphq (Chancellor) on Dec 19, 2004 at 18:14 UTC