Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-ws-sandesha-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 76350 invoked from network); 1 May 2010 07:13:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 1 May 2010 07:13:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 19840 invoked by uid 500); 1 May 2010 07:13:12 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-ws-sandesha-dev-archive@ws.apache.org Received: (qmail 19540 invoked by uid 500); 1 May 2010 07:13:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact java-dev-help@axis.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: java-dev@axis.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list java-dev@axis.apache.org Received: (qmail 19529 invoked by uid 99); 1 May 2010 07:13:11 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 May 2010 07:13:11 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [206.123.75.163] (HELO sosnoski.com) (206.123.75.163) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 May 2010 07:13:02 +0000 Received: from [192.168.0.65] (ip-58-28-158-218.static-xdsl.xnet.co.nz [58.28.158.218]) (authenticated bits=0) by sosnoski.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id o417CZno028679 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 1 May 2010 03:12:39 -0400 Message-ID: <4BDBD45D.9030506@sosnoski.com> Date: Sat, 01 May 2010 19:12:29 +1200 From: Dennis Sosnoski User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090822) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: commons-dev@ws.apache.org CC: Amila Suriarachchi , java-dev@axis.apache.org, wss4j-dev@ws.apache.org Subject: Re: Performance Comparison References: <201004300727.50854.dkulp@apache.org> In-Reply-To: <201004300727.50854.dkulp@apache.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Yes, I think it'd make much more sense to base a build-on-demand document model on the DOM API than to try to modify all the WSS4J and related code to use Axiom. Especially since Axiom is a mess and has had performance issues from the beginning (including using way too much memory as the model is expanded). As a radical suggestion, how about just implementing a build-on-demand DOM subset suitable for use by WSS4J and other tools? This wouldn't need to support all the DOM operations (including those using NodeList). Daniel Kulp wrote: > > The "normal" way to traverse a DOM doesn't use the NodeList thing. The > NodeList stuff isn't even threadsafe in Xerces. Actually, *no* access operations are threadsafe in Xerces. As far as I'm concerned that's a really bad design for general purpose use, ironically going back to the deferred node expansion feature that Xerces has on by default. It's always irked me that I have to use a synchronization lock around read-only operations with a (Xerces) DOM. That said, any form of build-on-demand document model is probably not going to be threadsafe. But for our purposes in using it with web services there's not much need for threadsafety. - Dennis --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@axis.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@axis.apache.org