• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Does SAX make sense?
• From: David Megginson <david@m...>
• Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 07:57:42 -0400
• In-reply-to: <200304191239.01827.miles@m...>
• References: <E196lKL-0001Uj-00@b...><20030419065948.L18010@r...><16033.12831.594661.223069@m...><200304191239.01827.miles@m...>

Miles Sabin writes:

 > 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.

That's scary.  I meant just the time for object allocation when
loading the XML document (a DOM tree contains a *lot* of objects).  I
had not considered class loading overhead.


All the best,


David

-- 
David Megginson, david@m..., http://www.megginson.com/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Does SAX make sense?
    • From: Miles Sabin <miles@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...>
  • Re: Does SAX make sense?
    • From: Miles Sabin <miles@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Does SAX make sense?
• Next by Date: Re: What is the data here?
• Previous by thread: Re: Does SAX make sense?
• Next by thread: Re: Does SAX make sense?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread