RE: Desktop vs JPluck
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Hoyle Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 5:24 PM On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 at 16:38, Lambert, Mark wrote: If I pluck a large document with Jpluck the resulting file is 9,561,208 bytes, but if I pluck it in the Desktop (with matching settings as far as I can tell) it is 12,348,756 bytes in addition to taking over 4 times as long. I don't know about size, but JPluck can do multiple simultaneous http connections which can great accelerate the downloading part. This is 751 files that are on my local disk. Jpluck takes 39 seconds and Desktop takes 5:40 to complete. Two other interesting notes; Jpluck lists 1182 files and Desktop list 1313 files. Desktop also takes over 20 seconds just to write out the file. Mark E-Mail messages may contain viruses, worms, or other malicious code. By reading the message and opening any attachments, the recipient accepts full responsibility for taking protective action against such code. Sender is not liable for any loss or damage arising from this message. The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee(s). Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
RE: Desktop vs JPluck
This is 751 files that are on my local disk. Jpluck takes 39 seconds and Desktop takes 5:40 to complete. Two other interesting notes; Jpluck lists 1182 files and Desktop list 1313 files. Desktop also takes over 20 seconds just to write out the file. Different langauges use different methods. One is Python, one is Java, and they are both designed with very different goals and mechanisms involved. It is no surprise that your results are different. d. ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
RE: Desktop vs JPluck
Understand that I am not trying to start a good versus bad or Python versus Java discussion with this topic. I am, however, trying to point out the various weaknesses in the tools. In my mind the best scenario would be that both tools would produce very similar output in about the same amount of time. What I don't like seeing is a 20% or more difference in output size when the input is fairly simple html with images. If someone has a working unplucker build for windows I can extract both versions and see what the major differences are. If not, I'll try and get the code from CVS and build one this week. Trying to improve the product, Mark E-Mail messages may contain viruses, worms, or other malicious code. By reading the message and opening any attachments, the recipient accepts full responsibility for taking protective action against such code. Sender is not liable for any loss or damage arising from this message. The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee(s). Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
Re: Desktop vs JPluck
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 at 16:38, Lambert, Mark wrote: If I pluck a large document with Jpluck the resulting file is 9,561,208 bytes, but if I pluck it in the Desktop (with matching settings as far as I can tell) it is 12,348,756 bytes in addition to taking over 4 times as long. I don't know about size, but JPluck can do multiple simultaneous http connections which can great accelerate the downloading part. -alan -- Alan Hoyle - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.alanhoyle.com/ I don't want the world, I just want your half. -TMBG Get Horizontal, Play Ultimate. ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
