tuscany-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Raymond Feng" <enjoyj...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Using StAX-based loaders for SCDL? was: SCDL4J
Date Mon, 02 Apr 2007 17:40:30 GMT
+1.

Thanks,
Raymond

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jean-Sebastien Delfino" <jsdelfino@apache.org>
To: <tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 9:58 PM
Subject: Using StAX-based loaders for SCDL? was: SCDL4J


> [snip]
> Raymond Feng wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> FYI: I checked in the first cut of the StAX-based loaders under 
>> scdl4j/stax. The logic is very similar to the SAX handlers.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Raymond
>>
> 
> Thanks Raymond, your new StAX loaders look good to me! actually better 
> than the SAX handlers that I had checked in yesterday :)
> 
> I made a few minor changes to bring them to the same level of 
> functionality as the SAX handlers, and then did a quick comparison 
> between the two approaches.
> 
> Performance:
> Here are some numbers from the SAXPerfTest and StAXPerfTest programs 
> that I committed today, which load the same composite file using both 
> techniques.
> - SAX handler using the JDK parser (Xerces): 0.395 msec
> - SAX handler using the Woodstox parser: 0.260 msec
> - StAX reader using the Woodstox parser: 0.258 msec
> Memory usage is slightly lower with StAX/Woodstox.
> So StAX/Woodstox wins by a very small margin, the bigger performance 
> gain really comes from using Woodstox instead of the version of Xerces 
> that comes with the JDK.
> 
> Programming model:
> Both approaches are very similar. I think I slightly prefer Raymond's 
> StAX-based approach as it allows state to be kept in local variables 
> instead of instance variables shared by multiple event handling methods. 
> Also, I thought that our core StAX loaders were a little fragmented 
> before and that probably caused some of their complexity, but Raymond's 
> new loaders now combines the simplicity of having the parsing logic in a 
> single class (similar to the SAX handlers that I had contributed) and 
> the convenience of the StAX pull parsing model.
> 
> The other advantage of the StAX based approach is that it covers reading 
> and writing XML documents (although it's easy to write code that 
> produces SAX events to generate a document, as I did in CompositeWriter 
> for example).
> 
> Dependencies:
> The SAX based approach works with just a JRE and nothing else. StAX 
> requires Woodstox (or another StAX implementation) or Java 6.
> 
> To summarize, the StAX loaders are slightly faster, slightly simpler to 
> write, but require Woodstox (about 500Kb). I'd like to remove the SAX 
> handlers that I had contributed in favor of Raymond's new StAX loaders, 
> but since one of the goals of this SCDL4J package is to make SCA really 
> pervasive and allow projects to consume SCA metadata with minimum 
> dependencies, I'd like to make sure that the Woodstox dependency is not 
> going to be a problem for people. Other similar packages like WSDL4J or 
> Woden for example only require the JRE...
> 
> So, what do people think about this dependency on a StAX parser like 
> Woodstox?
> 
> If there's no objections I'll switch to use Raymond's StAX loaders 
> around the end of the day on Monday...
> 
> -- 
> Jean-Sebastien
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org


Mime
View raw message