Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Call for fast XML implementations
Dear all,
it's an interesting coincidence that at the same time that the EXI WG
was busy drafting this very email xml-dev was discussing faster XML
parsers. We're sorry to say that we don't have money to offer, though
we can offer warm fuzzies and the chance to get your implementation
before the eyes of XML-related decision-makers (or at least
influencers) from quite a fair number of companies.
As you may know, the Efficient XML Interchange WG has been busy
building up a framework for the purpose of measuring various aspects
of efficient XML formats, with the goal not only of comparing
efficient formats with one another but also of comparing them to XML
in order to demonstrate the need for such a format with the nitty-
gritty of detail that has been requested of us. It is notably of
interest because these measurements will constitute a go/no-go point
such that if the efficient formats are not efficient enough, the EXI
WG would be closed down without producing an efficient XML format.
Needless to say, performing this comparison against a set of sluggish
XML parsers out there, of which there is no shortage, would hardly
prove satisfying. We therefore plan to use the fastest XML parsers
that we can lay our hands on, and this is where you can help us.
While the WG does have quite a fair bit of experience looking for
faster XML parsers, we do not claim to have perfect, all-encompassing
knowledge about the options that may be available and that we might
have overlooked in the past few years. Furthermore, a non-negligible
number of the XML parsers that are pitched as faster than the rest
achieve these levels of performance by cutting corners, generally
making them non-conformant — something which we cannot consider to be
a valid approach.
Therefore we solicit input from the community regarding fast XML
parsers. Which one(s) would you pick if you had to tear through XML
documents at warp speed? What is your experience with them in terms
of conformance? What would be your best bet if you wanted to kill the
EXI effort in its tracks?
We will naturally accept any and all information that we get our
hands on, but in order to be able to make the best use of the
information and possibly to avoid being swamped, there are some
aspects that we would like to see alongside parser recommendations:
* Some form of conformance statement. It needs to pass the XML Test
Suite (http://www.w3.org/XML/Test/).
* We need to be able to actually measure it. This entails that if
the code is not publicly available, we'll need a way to work out how
we can get a copy of the code to run it in our test system. This
doesn't necessarily mean making a copy of it available to all members
of the WG, but at least to the W3C staff so that they can run the tests.
* If you wish to be extra helpful, you can also include the small
amount of code and configuration required to run the parser within
our framework, which is built on top of Japex (https://
japex.dev.java.net/). If you're interested, we'd be delighted to help
you get started.
Thank you very much in advance, we look forward to your input.
--
Robin Berjon, on behalf of the EXI WG
Senior Research Scientist
Expway, http://expway.com/
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
