[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> > I did the same in Java, and it is well over 1000 times slower. I
> > agree with John that performance isn't everything, but 1000 times
> > slower using the same technology is, IMO, completely unreasonable.
>
> The biggest mistake people make designing XML processing systems is
> not distinguishing between what happens in the loop and what happens
> outside the loop.
>
> Optimizations inside the parsing/processing loop can give enormous
> payoffs -- for example, if you have a method that's invoked for every
> element, every text chunk, or even every character, it's an excellent
> candidate for optimization. On the other hand, optimizing a method
> that's invoked only once per document (unless your system handles
> thousands of small documents per minute) or once per session is
> generally a waste.
>
> For example, let's say that a method currently runs in 10
> microseconds, and through brilliant refactoring, you make it 1000
> times faster. If that method is invoked once for every character in a
> 1GB document, then you've just shaved 10 seconds off execution time --
> if you managed that with only a day's work, you deserve a productivity
> aware. If, on the other hand, that method is invoked once during the
> session, you've shaved about 0.00001 seconds off execution time -- if
> you spent a whole day doing that, you deserve something more along the
> lines of a bozo award.
>
> Using an exception to terminate parsing falls into the latter category
> unless, as I mentioned, you have an application that processes
> thousands of XML documents every minute.
Absolutely agree. Just that my application happens to do that :)
The biggest problem with large open standards is that they must serve a
wide community of users and through that an even wider range of
customers. I guess the issue here is that one should have the option of
doing things either way. Wouldn't that serve the most people?
|
