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

RE: Does SAX make sense?

• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Does SAX make sense?
• From: David Megginson <david@m...>
• Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 07:15:11 -0400
• In-reply-to: <005101c30661$089431b0$6401a8c0@pcukmka>
• References: <02d301c30646$b3ddc9c0$4bc8a8c0@A...><005101c30661$089431b0$6401a8c0@pcukmka>

Michael Kay writes:

 [excellent observations snipped]

 > It's quite true, of course, that if you have enough memory to hold a DOM
 > representation of your document, then using SAX merely in order to save
 > memory is fairly pointless. But that doesn't seem a very profound
 > observation.

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.

I've been messing around with something even closer to the metal (and
more efficient) than SAX, just for fun.  If anything comes of it, I'll
post and let everyone know.


All the best,


David

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

• References:
  • Does SAX make sense?
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
  • RE: Does SAX make sense?
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>

• 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