Giac,
This is no longer of interest to JAXB mailing list (apart
from "implicit" campaining for XmlBeans). I suggest we take
it either to private mail exchanges or to BindMark mailing
list.
Thanks
Kirill
--- JAXB User <jaxbuser_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
> Kirill,
>
> Thanks for rerunning the tests. Since I've run them
> myself now, I can appreciate the amount of time and
> effort it takes!
>
> Regarding the subjective ranking that I brought up on a
> post to your bindmark project mailing list, I understand
> that you use a concise set of criteria rather than a full
> feature set. I just wanted to bring to your attention
> that the points you bring up for XMLBeans on the negative
> side are no longer true, and many of the positive points
> brought up for other products are true for XMLBeans but
> are not listed. For example, XMLBeans
>
> - does not require a .xsdconfig file. Without a config
> file, defaulting is used in a similar manner as other
> libraries such as JAXB 2.0.
> - does not include the overhead of allocating the whole
> hierarchy during marshalling (as shown by your updated
> results)
> - generates meaningful error messages with line numbers
> and hints (and links back to the binding objects)
> - uses generics to enforce strong typing for collections.
> Note that this is optional so that pre 1.5 JVMs can
> continue to be supported.
> - provides ant tasks and command line interface for
> compiling XSDs (including incremental compilation).
>
> Perhaps you did the subjective ranking on a pre 2.0
> version of XMLBeans?
>
> Regards,
>
> Giac
>
> Kirill Grouchnikov <kirillcool_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
> Giac,
>
> Sorry for the delay. See [1] for the new results of
> XmlBeans, and how it ranks compared to JAXB / JAXB 2.0.
> About the list of XmlBeans features - BindMark provides
> concise information and not the complete feature list.
> See
> project FAQ for the explanations.
>
> Thanks for the code tip.
>
> Regards
> Kirill
>
> [1]
>
https://bindmark.dev.java.net/servlets/NewsItemView?newsItemID=2786
>
>
> --- JAXB User wrote:
>
> > Kirill,
> >
> > The cost of object allocation is taken into account
> > during unmarshalling, since this is where the object
> > hierarchy is created. I don't quite understand why this
> > would be counted again during marshalling. If you're
> > going to count the creation of the object hierarchy for
> > the marshalling benchmark, just make sure your
> consistent
> > across all of the products tested. For example, add the
> > cost of
> >
>
org.jvnet.bindmark.benchmark.test.Jaxb2Test.createHierarchy
> > (365 kB, 10,812 alloc.) durinig marshalling for JAXB
> 2.0.
> >
> > James
> >
> > Kirill Grouchnikov wrote:
> > Giac,
> >
> > I still consider the initialization of the binding
> > library
> > as part of one-time marshalling. Although it happens in
> > the
> > creation phase, it affects the overall footprint of the
> > process. Compared to other libraries, you not only "pay
> > the
> > price" of object allocation of your own hierarchy
> (which
> > is
> > ignored in the tests), but also the allocation of
> > XmlBeans.
> > That's why i don't ignore it in the results.
> >
> > Kirill
> >
> > --- JAXB User wrote:
> >
> > > Kirill,
> > >
> > > The XMLBeans functions you mentioned are not part of
> a
> > > one-time marshalling cost, they are part of the
> > creation
> > > of the object hierarchy, which as you explained
> before,
> > > is not counted in the marshalling benchmark. I
> believe
> > > all the one-time marshalling cost is captured under
> the
> > > org.apache.xmlbeans.XmlObject.save call, since the
> > first
> > > run takes quite a bit more memory than each
> subsequent
> > > iteration.
> > >
> > > It would be interesting to measure creation
> performance
> > > as a separate benchmark, but I'm sure there's no
> > shortage
> > > of other stuff to keep you busy! :-)
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Giac
> > >
> > > Kirill Grouchnikov wrote:
> > > Giac,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the suggestions. I'll test the XMLBeans on
> > it.
> > > However, it seems that you have missed the one-time
> > cost
> > > of
> > > initializing the XMLBeans. In
> > >
> >
> org.jvnet.bindmark.benchmark.marshal.MarshalerThread.run
> > > go
> > > to
> > >
> >
>
org.jvnet.bindmark.benchmark.test.XmlBeansTest.createHierarchy
> > > and to
> > >
> >
>
org.jvnet.bindmark.gen.xmlbeans.OrganizationDocument$Factory.newInstance.
> > >
> > > You'll see the constructor of XmlBeans object which
> > takes
> > > additional 3.190KB and 25.570 objects.
> > >
> > > I'll update the reports over the weekend
> > > Kirill
> > >
> > > --- JAXB User wrote:
> > >
> > > > Kirill,
> > > >
> > > > The numbers I get using your method outlined below
> > are
> > > > actually still quite a bit different. So far I've
> > > > benchmarked Sun's JAXB 2.0 reference implementation
> > > (from
> > > > 9/19/05) and XMLBeans (v2), several times with the
> > same
> > > > results. One important change I made in the
> XMLBeans
> > > > test is how marshalling is performed. Instead of
> > > > creating a string out of the XML being marshalled
> and
> > > > then serializing it, I use the save method on their
> > > base
> > > > object like this:
> > > >
> > > > ((XmlObject)hierarchy).save(baos);
> > > >
> > > > So the lower numbers I get (i.e. 6595kb versus
> > 101238kb
> > > > and 140ms versus 25864ms) would be explained by
> this.
> >
> > > > Would it be possible for you to make this change on
> > > your
> > > > end?
> > > >
> > > > To get the Level time number, I multiple the
> average
> > > time
> > > > reported to System.out by the number of iterations
> > > (i.e.
> > > > 1000 iterations for small, 100 for medium, and 10
> for
> > > > large data sets).
> > > >
> > > > My setup is as follows:
> > > >
> > > > JDK 1.5.0_03
> > > > Windows XP SP 2
> > > > Dell Lititude D600 with 1.86Ghz Intel Pentium M
> > > > processor and 2GB RAM
> > > > JProfiler 4.0.9
> > > > Below are the results I get. Regards,
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com