Santiago Pericas-Geertsen wrote:
>
> On Jan 19, 2006, at 11:00 AM, Mark Swanson wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Before I tested the nice time/space FI compression I wanted to make
>> sure that normal non-FI clients would still perform well. In summary I
>> found that the FI stax implementation for non-FI clients was about
>> 1.85x slower than woodstox and about 1.4x slower than the RI.
>
> What do you mean by "FI stax implementation for non-FI clients"? The FI
I was trying to use an abbreviation. You probably already read my
explanation in my response to Paul so I won't repeat here..
> stax parser can only parse FI, so you must be using some other parser if
> the input is XML.
Oh?
/me runs off to test war with missing stax impl...
You win. XFire is falling back to a non-stax-based parser. I had no idea
it would do that and I didn't see any indication in the logs. Sorry folks!
> You may also want to take a look at Japex (https://japex.dev.java.net)
> where you can find drivers in the JDSL (Japex drivers standard library)
> and run performance tests for several of the mainstream XML parsers --I
> don't think we have one for Woodstox, but it should be easy to write by
> copying one of the others.
I've been meaning to check out japex. Thanks for jogging my memory.
Cheers.
--
Free replacement for Exchange and Outlook (Contacts and Calendar)
http://www.ScheduleWorld.com/
WAP: http://www.ScheduleWorld.com/sw/WAPToday?id=4000&tz=EST
WebDAV: http://www.ScheduleWorld.com/sw/webDAVDir/4000.ics
VFREEBUSY: http://www.ScheduleWorld.com/sw/freebusy/4000.ifb