xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From <cos...@eng.sun.com>
Subject Re: [spinnaker] Announce
Date Thu, 13 Jul 2000 19:46:20 GMT
> > I'm well aware of the different constraints of open source vs. commercial
> > development.  If the parser folks do their job right, hopefully we can have
> > both optimal performance and understandable code, but I would still put
> > performance a notch higher, or at least bound to the fact that it must be
> > commercially viable from a performance perspective (the same is true for
> > the Apache HTTP server, I assume).  If it ain't fast enough, nothing else
> > matters.  Just my opinion, based on my perspective.
> 
> Which I totally dislike. The Apache HTTP Server is _not_ the fastest web
> server available, but it's the most solid, compliant, modular, useable,
> flexible, open, tested, appreciated.
> 
> Try asking around if people would trade speed for any of the above.
> You'll be surprised for the answer.

Try looking at the Apache sources and read the newhttpd mailing
archive. Yes, they give more priority to standard compiance, but it seems
performance is high enough on their list. It is not the fastest server,
but it's not very far away.

It's allways a tradeoff between performance and code clarity, and it seems
those days code clarity is winning - try to browse around and count the
seconds it taks to get a web page.  

Again, before hitting reply please take a look at the code in Apache ( or
Linux, or squid ), and read at least the comments. Async IO ? Processor
cache ? Bucket brigades ( I still can't claim I understand this or read
Ryan's code, BTW, and I have few weeks ) ? 


Costin  


Mime
View raw message