Hi Glen,
I'll be updating my earthquake data retrieval tests over the next week
or two to bring them up to date, including JiBX binding as an
alternative. Last time I checked the test running XMLBeans was roughly
on a par with Axis1 when I modified the code to only use the XMLBeans
objects for input and output (not as part of the loops). ADB was not
working well enough to test last time I tried (December). The JiBX
binding should be considerably faster, especially since I kludge the OM
interface to avoid expanding the tree when MTOM tries to walk it on output.
I've got a test with Axiom which I'll be adding to Jira later today. If
you don't expand the tree Axiom does well (naturally), but if you do
it's slower and bulkier than any standard document models. The output is
surprisingly slow, too - I'm not sure if this is because of the use of
XMLStreamWriter or because of Axiom's way of interfacing to XMLStreamWriter.
- Dennis
Glen Daniels wrote:
Hi folks:
Do we have current performance numbers for Axis2? Ideally a small
table with timing and memory footprint for 10, 100, 1000, 100000
identical WS round trips for Axis2, Axis1, and perhaps Glassfish would
be perfect. Anyone doing this sort of thing yet?
Do we indeed know that Axis2 is really that much faster/smaller than
Axis1 at this point?
Thanks,
--Glen
