• From: Tatu Saloranta <cowtowncoder@y...>
• To: xml dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 14:23:37 -0700 (PDT)

--- Stefan Tilkov <info@t...> wrote:

> On Sep 6, 2006, at 10:08 PM, K. W. Landry wrote:
> 
...
> In terms of performance, I would expect StAX and SAX
> to be roughly  
> equal. Something hardcoded that is not XML-aware
> will be a lot  
> faster, but much more error-prone.

Latter yes, former not necessarily. What I found out
was that reading a stream using JDK BufferedReader(),
reading line by line, was slightly slower than parsing
content as XML. Your mileage may vary, but regular
stream parsing is surprisingly fast nowadays (30 - 40
MBps on typical desktop machines),

-+ Tatu +-


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

• References:
  • Re: best xml parser to use
    • From: Stefan Tilkov <info@t...>