From: Chilkat Software <support@...>
Date: 2006-11-07T08:20:53+09:00
Subject: Re: REXML


Is that a mistake?  Out of curiosity I took a look on my wife's computer
(she's the iPod user) and her XML file was only 231KB.  The structure
of it conforms to the code you shared, so I know it's the right file...

Did you mean to say MB instead of GB?

-Matt


At 05:03 PM 11/6/2006, you wrote:

>pdg wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > As a first exercise with Ruby, I am going through the Pickaxe book and
> > creating a jukebox. I haven't even tried to create an array of songs
> > yet, because I got distracted and wanted to work this out. I am trying
> > toi feed in the data from my iTunes xml file to it to get the data, I
> > can get it to work if I delete most of the xml file, but when it's 5-6
> > gig,
>
>OMFG. That's a -huge- XML file. Probably all of my MP3s together would
>fit into there with base64-encoded contents :P
>
> > rexml just seems to die. I have vaguely heard that stream parsing
> > may be the answer, but am totally unaware of how to use it.
> >
>
>Well, time to learn. I probably never even saw a computer that could
>handle a XML file that size using straightforward DOM parsing - which
>normally "blows up" the original XML document's size in bytes five times
>and more. And REXML definitely doesn't have performance of any kind
>amongst its qualities. (And for completeness' sake, I never 'clicked'
>with the API either, but I'm a minority there.)
>
>You want a Ruby binding to a stream or pull parser - to my best
>knowledge, REXML is neither. That means libxml2, expat, or Xerces.
>Compiling Required - I think the one-click installer comes with one of
>these, buggered if I know which.
>
>After that, Google is your friend. Look at the documentation to
>whichever parser you decided to use and use that - personally, I don't
>do much / no non-tree XML parsing at all, so I'm mainly guessing around
>on this. The main difference is that while with REXML, you can
>arbitrarily look around the XML document, with stream and pull parsing,
>you can only process the document in order, and have to keep the state
>of that processing (e.g. which track you're currently "working on") in
>your Ruby code.
>
>David Vallner
>
>


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.28/518 - Release Date: 11/4/2006