Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-xml-cocoon-dev-archive@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 72014 invoked by uid 500); 18 Apr 2003 22:58:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 71991 invoked from network); 18 Apr 2003 22:58:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO host.leverageweb.com) (64.91.232.157) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 18 Apr 2003 22:58:19 -0000 Received: from 66-44-92-113.s621.tnt6.lnhva.md.dialup.rcn.com ([66.44.92.113] helo=geoff2k) by host.leverageweb.com with asmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 196elB-0006M1-00 for cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 18:55:10 -0400 From: "Geoff Howard" To: Subject: RE: benchmarking Cocoon? Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 19:15:28 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <3EA05933.6010101@apache.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Importance: Normal X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.leverageweb.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - xml.apache.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [0 0] / [0 0] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - leverageweb.com X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N > -----Original Message----- > From: Berin Loritsch [mailto:bloritsch@apache.org] > > John Morrison wrote: > >>From: Argyn [mailto:akuketayev@cox.net] > >> > >>Hi > >> > >>Do you think there's a need for benchmarking Cocoon? > > > > > > Nice thought, but you know the saying; there's lies > > dam lies and benchmarks ;) > > > > What would you measure and what would you compare it > > with? > > The only value in benchmarking Cocoon is when you do it > with itself. If all hardware remains the same, then > software improvements become evident. No, that's great for developers already committed to cocoon, but that's not a useful metric to those evaluating cocoon against the other "options": straight JSP, filtered servlets, struts, ASP, PHP, ColdFusion, Tea, XMLC, &that-perl-xml-xslt-thing-that-i-can-never-remember-the-name; , etc. etc. etc. I put options in quotes because there aren't a lot of java-xml- xlst options out there. Of course, it's almost impossible to do apples to apples comparisons against those, but it is reasonable to try. If Cocoon takes 100 times as long on average per page, it's not a viable option for people. If it's fast, but needs 10 times the memory, same thing (although memory is cheap now). The first word out about Cocoon seems to be "neat but really slow and a memory hog". I wasn't around then, but it sounds like that wasn't far off with Cocoon1. If things have changed (as it sure seems it has), it wouldn't be bad for business to "publish" some kind of quantitative tests that prove that. Cocoon offers so much in the way of SoC, etc. that it doesn't need to be the fastest - it just needs to be in the game. Geoff