Re^3: XML::Fling begone?

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

Comment on Re^3: XML::Fling begone?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
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
Ok then, I'll add benchmarking the two vs each other to my TODO. Any suggestions on how to benchmark? I'm thinking I should lift the code from some ticker generator and create an XML::Genx-adapted version to pit against it. Makeshifts last the longest.	[reply]
Re^7: XML::Fling begone? by demerphq (Chancellor) on Dec 19, 2004 at 18:14 UTC