[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Stephen D. Williams wrote:
>Dennis Sosnoski wrote:
>
>
>>>...
>>>
>>>
>>The problem, which I've expressed more than once, is to compare the
>>performance for the alternatives of using text XML vs. some post-parse
>>representation of XML documents. For the reasons given in my earlier
>>email I'm chosing to base my timing comparisons on the parse event
>>stream. This is in my opinion the fairest comparison to all
>>approaches, since essentially any application working with XML is
>>going to be using the output from a parse, not the raw document text.
>>SAX2 is the most widely used parser API for Java, so that's what I'm
>>using as the common event stream.
>>
>>
>
>As you may remember from previous discussions, my approach in its ideal
>mode IS working with the 'raw document text'. I think that this aspect
>of my approach is different from what everyone else is proposing even
>though we may share other strategies. Except when converting to/from
>XML 1.0, esXML has no parsing and no serialization for a 'native'
>application (i.e. one that operates in the most optimal, esxml-aware
>mode). That doesn't mean you can't have a standard DOM or SAX
>interface, but that esDOM is likely to be much more efficient.
>
I haven't looked at esXML/esDOM in any detail, but it sounds like what
you're doing is defining a whole different way of working with XML
document data. That's fine, but it doesn't really allow for direct
comparisons in the same terms as other approaches which preserve the XML
parse event stream - you're assuming (or at least suggesting) that
everyone will use your APIs for working with XML documents, while I'm
looking at the more modest issue of efficiently transporting XML
documents from one place to another while preserving standard APIs.
To give a direct comparison with esXML/esDOM I'd need to define a native
API for working with the XBIS serialization of a document directly.
That's not something I see as worthwhile, given the wide variety of APIs
already available for working with XML. It'd be interesting to at least
see how the document size compares, though - if you want to investigate,
the XBIS site http://www.xbis.org currently has size comparisons between
text and XBIS for serveral different documents and collections of
documents. The documents are all (except for a modified form of the XML
recommendation itself, which I'm prohibited from redistributing)
included in the download.
- Dennis
--
Dennis M. Sosnoski
Enterprise Java, XML, and Web Services
Training and Consulting
http://www.sosnoski.com
Redmond, WA 425.885.7197
|
