Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
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 > >
|
