[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
>At 10:10 AM -0700 4/13/04, Dennis Sosnoski wrote:
>
>
>>Yes, the question is how fast this stuff - text XML - can be
>>generated. I'm interested in XML interchange costs, which includes
>>both the input and output processing overhead as well as the actual
>>document size. In order to give a comparison that's as fair as
>>possible I'm using SAX2 parse event streams as the common base
>>document representation, which also corresponds to actual usage - if
>>you were using XBIS as the transport for an XML document
>>representation between programs you'd generally do so by plugging in
>>an encoder that takes the place of text serialization at the sending
>>end and a decoder that takes the place of a parser at the receiving
>>end.
>>
>>
>
>
>If that's the case, I suspect your fastest output would just come
>with the appropriate write() method in OutputStream or Writer. Why
>use a fancy API at all?
>
>Now, of course, if performance isn't the be-all and end-all then
>there may be advantages to using an API, but likely the fastest
>output will be achieved with the most direct approach.
>
>
I think we're talking different types of output here. I want to generate
XML text output from a SAX2 parse event stream, so I can directly
compare the time taken to generate the XML text with the time taken to
generate XBIS output, for instance. The write() method in an
OutputStream or Writer isn't going to generate XML text.
- Dennis
|
