[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Good to see Dennis using Piccolo as well as Xerces. The tests confirm
that Xerces-J
still one of the worst-performing XML parsers* (though, of course,
things change).
It would be useful to also have a test of scalability: what the rates
are for multiple
concurrent parsers, with pooling. Or do you think the results should scale?
Cheers
Rick Jelliffe
* http://piccolo.sourceforge.net/bench.html
http://www.extreme.indiana.edu/~aslom/exxp/
http://archive.devx.com/xml/articles/sf020101/sf0201-3.asp
http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-04-2002/jw-0426-xmljava3-p2.html
http://forum.java.sun.com/thread.jsp?forum=34&thread=338038&message=1386505
Christian Nentwich wrote:
>this is really cool, finally some hard data. One thing that would make
>your presentation even more convincing is if you dumped the property
>and feature values set in Xerces at the time of running into your
>experiment information.
>(http://xml.apache.org/xerces2-j/properties.html)
>
>This would help to convince the reader that you didn't overlook
>anything, e.g. leave some kind of whitespace normalisation turned on,
>didn't leave any schema validation turned on, etc.
>
>Christian
>
>
|
