Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-ws-axis-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 96963 invoked from network); 28 Oct 2004 05:44:54 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 28 Oct 2004 05:44:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 59274 invoked by uid 500); 28 Oct 2004 05:44:49 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-ws-axis-dev-archive@ws.apache.org Received: (qmail 59183 invoked by uid 500); 28 Oct 2004 05:44:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact axis-dev-help@ws.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: axis-dev@ws.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list axis-dev@ws.apache.org Received: (qmail 59173 invoked by uid 99); 28 Oct 2004 05:44:48 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [129.79.246.27] (HELO whale.cs.indiana.edu) (129.79.246.27) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 22:44:47 -0700 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (whale.cs.indiana.edu [129.79.246.27]) by whale.cs.indiana.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11/IUCS_2.62) with ESMTP id i9S5iekg004803; Thu, 28 Oct 2004 00:44:41 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <41808747.20305@cs.indiana.edu> Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 00:44:39 -0500 From: Aleksander Slominski User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: axis-dev@ws.apache.org CC: chintaka@opensource.lk Subject: Re: [Axis2] - OM and MTOM References: <4010969126822175258@unknownmsgid> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.86.1.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Srinath Perera wrote: >I think our problem is when we build he OM we do not know the content >of a element is binary data and it will converted to the string. If we >chaeck for that by looking at the attributes then we compromize the >performance. thoughts ? > > Srinath, what are exactly your performance concerns? i think that there is no much of choice: MTOM pre-handling must happen during XML parsing/streaming this way it is optimal for performance and happens during building of OM. thanks, alek > >On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 10:52:08 +0600, Eran Chinthaka > wrote: > > >> >> >> >>Can we introduce a OMBinaryNode to OM to represent the base64 which are MTOM >>compliant. >> >> >> >>But I have a problem of identifying optimized and un-optimized data in the >>parser level. Can we represent everything as Strings, whether optimized or >>unoptimized. The Element having the base64 data *may* have some information >>in its attributes to identify. But do we have to check all the elements for >>this, and what if the element do not have those info, but contains base64 >>data. >> >> >> >>Thoughts & Comments …… ?? >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> >>Eran Chinthaka >> >>Lanka Software Foundation >> >> >> >> > > > -- The best way to predict the future is to invent it - Alan Kay