On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 02:26:29AM -0400, Simetrical wrote:
Join the dark side, Jay. You know you want to. ;)
Perhaps, but you ain't my daddy. :-)
On 8/17/06, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com wrote:
Yeah; and which processor that XML<->WT conversion happened on would be critical for load reasons...
Well, I wouldn't expect WT -> XML to be any slower than our current parser (we could just modify it to output the XML instead of the wikitext); actually, it would be quite a lot faster, no doubt, because all sorts of things like template substitutions wouldn't have to occur. So it would probably be slow but manageable.
You're suggesting to ship XML to the browser and let XSSSL do the translation actually *in* the browser?
That makes me a bit queasy, though perhaps it shouldn't.
XML -> WT should be virtually instantaneous, as should XML -> HTML, because parse time would be one-pass at C speed (so probably a few milliseconds or less, as opposed to 800 ms for the current parser).
Hmmm...
There would of course be all sorts of weirdness in XML -> WT, so it might not be as fast as XML -> HTML, but the WMF gets a *hell* of a lot more cache misses on page views than on page edits, I would bet a substantial sum of money.
Oh, I'm sure. Except on the top 5% current events-y pages.
Cheers, -- jra