Hi,
I'm a big proponent of keeping XML in its native state. It's
already a group of cross-linked associated arrays (childNodes, for
example) and it's very easy to traverse. Since XML is a native language
format in Flash, it's as fast as you can get. It's not any more RAM
intensive than parsing everything into separate arrays since you're re-
creating the same structure outside of the XML object. However, you can
quickly test this for yourself by seeing the memory usage of the Flash
player in your Task Manager and comparing this to a parsed XML tree with
the XML data removed. I believe you'll find the parsed data to be larger
because you've decoupled all of the relationships of the linked arrays.
Whereas previously arays (in XML) would simply contain pointers to
offsets, now they contain copies of the data. Hope this helps.
Regards,
Patrick
__________/ BAY NEW MEDIA \____________________
Flash Application Development
& Technology Integration
http://www.baynewmedia.com/ email: contact at baynewmedia dot com
\______________________________________________
"hexatropic" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in
news:dv9vb7$ccd$1@forums.macromedia.com:
[quoted text, click to view] > Can anyone tell me what is the best way to handle XML data once it's
> loaded into Flash? I am reading "XML for Flash" from Friends of ED,
> and the author is loading an XML doc, and then using the data tree in
> the XML object to hold all of the information for later use. This is
> appealing, because the tree structure in the XML already models the
> data very well, and is intuitive to work with.
>
> I am concerned though, (based on things I've heard) that this might
> be RAM
> intensive and make for kludgy performance. If i were to transfer
> everything from the tree into a set of variables and/or arrays, and
> then "null" the XML object, would this perform better? It sure would
> be a lot of extra work to re-model all of the data
>
>