Hi Alek, have a look at https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/webservices/axis/trunk/archive/java/scratch/dasarath/om/$1/summary.html
Sorry for the messup with the tabs! --Dasarath --- Aleksander Slominski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dasarath Weeratunge wrote: > > >If you are in doubt about how much recent > >architectural changes may have affected (or killed) > OM > >performance please look at the following test > results: > > > >https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/webservices/axis/trunk/archive/java/scratch/dasarath/om/$1/ > > > > > what is tab size you use? i am sure it is not 8 > chars ... > > i could not grasp what this table means and what are > results - is it > slower, faster, how much? > > diff/currentTimeMillis > > impl N M > T S diff > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > LLElement(test1) 200 100 > 10000 1 > > ALElement(test2) > 1 11 > traverse/Object > get(int index) > > 5 11 > > 100 11 > > > > 1 35 > traverse/Iterator iterator() > > 5 35 > > 100 35 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > LLElement(test1) 200 10000 > 100 6 > > ALElement(test2) > 1 21 > traverse/Object > get(int index) > > 5 26 > > 100 49 > > > > 1 45 > traverse/Iterator iterator() > > 5 50 > > 100 72 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > alek > > >--Dasarath > > > >--- Eran Chinthaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >>Hi all, > >> > >>This will some relate to the thread "Doubt on > Detail > >>Element in SOAPFault". > >> > >>AXIOM was not meant to check the compliance with > >>SOAP spec or anything else. > >>It will just hold the infoset. The reason behind > me > >>putting a SAAJ like api > >>on top of OM was to provide developer convenience. > >>For example, rather than > >>saying element.getFirstElement(), developers love > to > >>use > >>envelope.getHeader(). So, that was the intention > of > >>providing that sort of > >>SOAP jargon in to Axiom. This was our initial > idea. > >> > >>But later, some have put some checks in to the > AXIOM > >>SOAP api. And the > >>earlier thread also was asking about this > >>validation. > >> > >>So I have a small question on this. What should we > >>have in AXIOM ?? > >> > >>1. Shall we "KISS" Axiom, and let it be just a > info > >>set holder. > >> - If this is the case, this will not affect > the > >>performance, due to > >>validation and stuff. And if we make it like this > >>how we gonna provide > >>validation or do we need to provide validation. > Can > >>we leave this up to the > >>user ? > >>2. Shall we make AXIOM SOAP stuff do validation on > >>SOAP 1.1 spec as well. > >>- This will definitely affect the performance. > >> > >> > >>IMHO, I prefer option 1, which is basically my > >>initial idea as well. > >> > >>What do you all think about this ? > >> > >> > >>Thanks, > >>Eran Chinthaka > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > >__________________________________________________ > >Do You Yahoo!? > >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > >http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > > > -- > The best way to predict the future is to invent it - > Alan Kay > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
