• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Does SAX make sense?
• From: Miles Sabin <miles@m...>
• Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 12:39:01 +0100
• In-reply-to: <16033.12831.594661.223069@m...>
• References: <E196lKL-0001Uj-00@b...> <20030419065948.L18010@r...> <16033.12831.594661.223069@m...>
• Sender: Miles Sabin <miles@m...>
• User-agent: KMail/1.5.1

David Megginson wrote,
> A few years ago, when I was still profiling these things, Java-based
> DOM implementations were relatively slow to start up with large
> documents, even when the the documents fit in memory easily.  Perhaps
> Michael and other DOM implementors have found ways to work around the
> problem, or Java VMs have gotten faster at allocating new objects.

For a one-shot application (ie. startup; process one document instance; 
terminate) the classloading overhead for the DOM API can be quite 
significant even with the most recent VMs. In some work I've done 
lately I've seen DOM classloading account for as much as 10% of wall 
clock time with the Sun 1.4.1_02 VM on Linux, Solaris and the other 
one. SAX, being a much smaller API, is at an advantage here.

But, TBH, I don't think this tells us much other than that Java isn't 
great as a scripting language ... and we knew that anyway.

Cheers,


Miles

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Does SAX make sense?
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>

• References:
  • Re: ANN: White Paper - "Using OWL to Avoid Syntactic Rigor Mortis"
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>
  • Re: Does SAX make sense?
    • From: Daniel Veillard <veillard@r...>
  • Re: Does SAX make sense?
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Does SAX make sense?
• Next by Date: Re: Does SAX make sense?
• Previous by thread: Re: Does SAX make sense?
• Next by thread: Re: Does SAX make sense?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread