Mailing-List: contact security-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: security-dev@xml.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of raul.benito.garcia@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.134.184 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth;
        b=eBHV+A3km3zpPdi6IxieG4L2Yi9jRZcNhpcxLXslA5M2v4PUWHxlHLQ792btbI7MQN7A7CRLTRaaTQrlKaNylYfkeXbUF3zVa0x4pXoPcEE1BSu1PXHZgjPYFOhX+5uJPN3wxjaGMyU0w0FWKtA79mkNNwg4vu8OFC7h5MIp1aY=
Message-ID: <949ac9410710290800p61f63318tdc2ed378814a56b7@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 08:00:33 -0700
From: "Raul Benito" <raul@apache.org>
Sender: raul.benito.garcia@gmail.com
To: security-dev@xml.apache.org
Subject: Re: Is there a difference in memory usage between
 Apache-Java-XmlSecurity and Apache-C++-XmlSecurity?
In-Reply-To: <loom.20071029T133412-547@post.gmane.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_3025_13581014.1193670033808"
References: <loom.20071029T133412-547@post.gmane.org>

------=_Part_3025_13581014.1193670033808
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Hi Andre,
Your memory problems are DOM realated the XML-SEC library only needs 10MB t=
o
verify any document.
So in order to improve it you must look using the expermiental STAX
implementation or the SAX one.

Regards,

Raul


p.s. I haven't take a deep look to the encrypt/decrypting part  so perahps
we have some problems there.

On 10/29/07, Andr=E9 <Andre.Stoyke@bdr.de> wrote:
>
> Hallo.
>
> We use apache-xml-security java-implementation for signature and
> encryption on
> the client and validation and decryption on the server.
>
> On both sides we have "problems" with the hunger for memory of the java-
> implementation. We use version 1.3, but I already tried version 1.4 and
> have
> found no difference!
>
> But this time I'm interrested in the server-side:
> For example an signed and encrypted xml-doc of 50MB will need MORE than
> 600MB
> to decrypt. With about 1000MB memory it works fine (factor: 20!).
> In our scenario there can be many parallel requests for decryption.
> Less memory needed would be fine!
>
> Is the C++-implementation less memory-hungry?
>
> Has anybody tried it out and can give me a kind of comparison result?
> Thank's!
>
> Bye, Andr=E9
>
>
>


--=20
http://r-bg.com

------=_Part_3025_13581014.1193670033808
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Hi Andre,<br>Your memory problems are DOM realated the XML-SEC library only=
 needs 10MB to verify any document.<br>So in order to improve it you must l=
ook using the expermiental STAX implementation or the SAX one.<br><br>Regar=
ds,
<br><br>Raul<br><br><br>p.s. I haven&#39;t take a deep look to the encrypt/=
decrypting part&nbsp; so perahps we have some problems there.<br><br><div><=
span class=3D"gmail_quote">On 10/29/07, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">Andr=
=E9</b> &lt;
<a href=3D"mailto:Andre.Stoyke@bdr.de">Andre.Stoyke@bdr.de</a>&gt; wrote:</=
span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(=
204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Hallo.<br><b=
r>
We use apache-xml-security java-implementation for signature and encryption=
 on<br>the client and validation and decryption on the server.<br><br>On bo=
th sides we have &quot;problems&quot; with the hunger for memory of the jav=
a-
<br>implementation. We use version 1.3, but I already tried version 1.4 and=
 have<br>found no difference!<br><br>But this time I&#39;m interrested in t=
he server-side:<br>For example an signed and encrypted xml-doc of 50MB will=
 need MORE than 600MB
<br>to decrypt. With about 1000MB memory it works fine (factor: 20!).<br>In=
 our scenario there can be many parallel requests for decryption.<br>Less m=
emory needed would be fine!<br><br>Is the C++-implementation less memory-hu=
ngry?
<br><br>Has anybody tried it out and can give me a kind of comparison resul=
t?<br>Thank&#39;s!<br><br>Bye, Andr=E9<br><br><br></blockquote></div><br><b=
r clear=3D"all"><br>-- <br><a href=3D"http://r-bg.com">http://r-bg.com</a>

------=_Part_3025_13581014.1193670033808--