[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: IBM xml4j parser vs. Datachannel

• From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>
• To: xml-dev@i...
• Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:14:49 -0700

Erik James Freed wrote:
> 
> Clearly we need performance tests to go along with Dave Brownell's fine
> conformance tests!

Yep -- but far better than the only one I saw (the February Java Report)
which benchmarked only the DOM getElementsByTagName() method, and which had
a notable set of serious factual and methodological flaws.

SAX and DOM performance should be separately weighed, and balanced against
conformance.  As they say, it's easy to be fast if you don't do it right!

As I recall, xml.com had an article looking at some performance comparisons
(C, Java, Python) a while back.

- Dave

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• References:
  • RE: IBM xml4j parser vs. Datachannel
    • From: "Erik James Freed" <ejfreed@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Where to start?
• Next by Date: RE: Where to start?
• Previous by thread: RE: IBM xml4j parser vs. Datachannel
• Next by thread: About PSGML 1.2.0 (Open-Source XML editor)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread