Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-camel-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 48126 invoked from network); 30 Sep 2010 14:17:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 30 Sep 2010 14:17:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 67053 invoked by uid 500); 30 Sep 2010 14:17:02 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-camel-users-archive@camel.apache.org Received: (qmail 66874 invoked by uid 500); 30 Sep 2010 14:17:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@camel.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@camel.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@camel.apache.org Received: (qmail 66864 invoked by uid 99); 30 Sep 2010 14:17:00 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 14:17:00 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of marco.zapletal@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.45 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.161.45] (HELO mail-fx0-f45.google.com) (209.85.161.45) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 14:16:51 +0000 Received: by fxm13 with SMTP id 13so1360475fxm.32 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 07:16:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=yzwNXTbrqaAmw3d0Hw+7Ik7hMbaneZV6Vm5lp7zge74=; b=Y1BqzY7EZO/7Nk2G4wLP1kjuyg8HazsiUfGVsmOUfPsJMSelXtLcEW3eASoyESxx33 N6y4zAYl7gkY9rU3zNawqDu1/RKzmBD2mfXwB38GfvHeqOJ0N2uDhggbcNc4jtdTgVIm 4YHaKv47C1Ey1usUD8O8Qc8zqMWLanxH1Za8Q= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=qTwtPyMjJgo4fo8QpxneDs8Wi8T2FXV9QHGL2olksMQCCVzrRC9DXqakBL8IUW4l+u DQyK/CAOBwFSP9fsjXISZ9yftZ9759PsE4qVaHrMjJajJzAoUzTQYvaiZAmwU/vnAhz1 hyRMGMPBiXUEfrtAosZSCCTrpXHbv6U1MV3n0= Received: by 10.223.1.133 with SMTP id 5mr3977459faf.18.1285856191469; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 07:16:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.168.190] (fortinat.ifs.tuwien.ac.at [128.131.167.8]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 14sm4528926fav.2.2010.09.30.07.16.30 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 30 Sep 2010 07:16:31 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Marco Zapletal Message-ID: <4CA49BBB.9090906@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:16:27 +0200 From: Marco Zapletal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100915 Thunderbird/3.1.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: users@camel.apache.org Subject: CXF performance considerations - pojo vs. payload Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Hi, just a quick question in terms of the different data formats offered for CXF services. I expect that there is a significant performance difference when using payload instead of the pojo data format, since it avoids the JAXB (or any other) marshaling process. Can anybody confirm this or share his experiences? thanks, marco