std.xml should just go

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Thursday, February 03, 2011 14:17:49 Tomek Sowiński wrote:
> spir spir napisał:
> > > You probably shouldn't look at the source.
> > > I dunno about the interface (documentation) - it's certainly not
> > > illegal to take inspiration from it, but maybe then people will again
> > > claim that source was stolen.. but when you claim that you haven't
> > > looked at the source it may be ok..
> > > 
> > > Maybe a clean-room approach is possible: Somebody else looks at the
> > > source and documents what it does and how it does that (without
> > > copying anything) and you could use that documentation for your own
> > > code.
> > > If you don't want to clone it but have questions about how they did
> > > something specific you could just ask here and (hopefully) someone
> > > looks it up and explains it to you.
> > 
> > Mamma mia! In what world are we supposed to live!?
> 
> My thoughts exactly. I mean, as soon as Jonathan mentioned Tango's XML, I
> knee-jerkingly got paranoid and asked about legality of even reading about
> it to stay clear. I only hope having heard about it is legal.

Well, we're not looking to copy what they did. We're just looking to get 
performance that's similar. As I understand it, Tango's XML parser is one of the 
best out there as far as speed goes. From the benchmarks I've seen, it 
absolutely creams the competition. So, they're set a high bar, and we'd like to 
reach it. We probably won't be that fast at first, and we may never be that fast, 
but it's something to shoot for. Regardless, it's their performance that we're 
interested in, not necessarily their implementation. If they were more open and 
willing to share code, then building off of what they have and turning it into a 
range-based solution would likely make a lot of sense, but since that's not the 
case, we need to figure it out on our own.

- Jonathan M Davis