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

Re: binary XML API and scientific use cases [Re: [ANN

• To: Wolfgang Hoschek <whoschek@l...>
• Subject: Re: binary XML API and scientific use cases [Re: [ANN] nux-1.0beta2 release
• From: Aleksander Slominski <aslom@c...>
• Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:14:50 -0500
• Cc: public-xml-binary@w..., xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <B28F9BCC-3CCE-11D9-B6EA-000A95BD16CE@l...>
• References: <D3CEA54A-35C8-11D9-83E5-000A95BD16CE@l...> <41A25398.4000407@c...> <B28F9BCC-3CCE-11D9-B6EA-000A95BD16CE@l...>
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (Windows/20041103)

Wolfgang Hoschek wrote:

> On Nov 22, 2004, at 1:01 PM, Aleksander Slominski wrote:
>
>> Wolfgang Hoschek wrote:
>>
>>> This is to announce the nux-1.0beta2 release (http://dsd.lbl.gov/nux/).
>>>
>>> Nux is a small, straightforward, and surprisingly effective 
>>> open-source extension of the  XOM XML library.
>>>
>> hi Wolfgang,
>>
>> the natural question is: how does it compare to XBIS?
>
>
> Among other things, we also benchmarked with the test xml files that 
> come with XBIS (thanks to Dennis Sonoski for the great work - much 
> appreciated). It would be interesting to directly compare performance 
> with XBIS, but so far we did not do so, for two reasons:
>
> - XBIS currently does not work with XOM (misses some XMLReader 
> features/properties that XOM requires)
> - XBIS measures performance from and to SAX event streams. bnux 
> measure performance from XOM documents to byte arrays, and back. bnux 
> includes XOM tree walking, tree building, and the inherent XOM XML 
> wellformedness checks, which is signifcantly more epensive (and also 
> more useful, since it measure delivering data from/to a large number 
> of real-world applications, rather than low-level SAX apps). In other 
> words, the benchmarking methodology is different. It would not be an 
> apples to apples comparison. 

so in other words XBIS is really streaming and is good for kind of 
applications that do not need XOM (or *OM*-like) APIs.

> Might still be interesting, though.

XBIS could potentially process unlimited amount of data so nux could not 
really compare.

>
>>
>>
>> did you compare BNUX and XBIS performance?
>
>
> see above.

that is different. i had impression that BNUX defines binary XML 
representation.

i was curious how different is BNUX from XBIS.

why did you decide not to use XBIS XML encoding?

what is missing or needs to be added?

those may be valuable insight for W3C XBC WG?

thanks,

alek

-- 
The best way to predict the future is to invent it - Alan Kay

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: binary XML API and scientific use cases [Re: [ANN] nux-1.0beta2 release
    • From: Wolfgang Hoschek <whoschek@l...>

• References:
  • [ANN] nux-1.0beta2 release
    • From: Wolfgang Hoschek <whoschek@l...>
  • binary XML API and scientific use cases [Re: [ANN] nux-1.0beta2release
    • From: Aleksander Slominski <aslom@c...>
  • Re: binary XML API and scientific use cases [Re: [ANN] nux-1.0beta2 release
    • From: Wolfgang Hoschek <whoschek@l...>

• Prev by Date: Simplify XML Now? (Was RE: Re: Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: XML 2004 weblog items?))
• Next by Date: Re: Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: XML 2004 weblog items?)
• Previous by thread: IEEE floats and binary XML [Re: binary XML API and scientificuse cases [Re: [ANN] nux-1.0beta2 release
• Next by thread: Re: binary XML API and scientific use cases [Re: [ANN] nux-1.0beta2 release
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread