Hi,
From what is mentioned here, I'd go with the StAX approach. Also, Woodstox
seems to be an option for now and would be gone when we move to Java6 which I suppose we will in the near future. Is that right?
Thanks - Venkat On 4/2/07, Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1. Thanks, Raymond ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jean-Sebastien Delfino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org> Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 9:58 PM Subject: Using StAX-based loaders for SCDL? was: SCDL4J > [snip] > Raymond Feng wrote: >> Hi, >> >> FYI: I checked in the first cut of the StAX-based loaders under >> scdl4j/stax. The logic is very similar to the SAX handlers. >> >> Thanks, >> Raymond >> > > Thanks Raymond, your new StAX loaders look good to me! actually better > than the SAX handlers that I had checked in yesterday :) > > I made a few minor changes to bring them to the same level of > functionality as the SAX handlers, and then did a quick comparison > between the two approaches. > > Performance: > Here are some numbers from the SAXPerfTest and StAXPerfTest programs > that I committed today, which load the same composite file using both > techniques. > - SAX handler using the JDK parser (Xerces): 0.395 msec > - SAX handler using the Woodstox parser: 0.260 msec > - StAX reader using the Woodstox parser: 0.258 msec > Memory usage is slightly lower with StAX/Woodstox. > So StAX/Woodstox wins by a very small margin, the bigger performance > gain really comes from using Woodstox instead of the version of Xerces > that comes with the JDK. > > Programming model: > Both approaches are very similar. I think I slightly prefer Raymond's > StAX-based approach as it allows state to be kept in local variables > instead of instance variables shared by multiple event handling methods. > Also, I thought that our core StAX loaders were a little fragmented > before and that probably caused some of their complexity, but Raymond's > new loaders now combines the simplicity of having the parsing logic in a > single class (similar to the SAX handlers that I had contributed) and > the convenience of the StAX pull parsing model. > > The other advantage of the StAX based approach is that it covers reading > and writing XML documents (although it's easy to write code that > produces SAX events to generate a document, as I did in CompositeWriter > for example). > > Dependencies: > The SAX based approach works with just a JRE and nothing else. StAX > requires Woodstox (or another StAX implementation) or Java 6. > > To summarize, the StAX loaders are slightly faster, slightly simpler to > write, but require Woodstox (about 500Kb). I'd like to remove the SAX > handlers that I had contributed in favor of Raymond's new StAX loaders, > but since one of the goals of this SCDL4J package is to make SCA really > pervasive and allow projects to consume SCA metadata with minimum > dependencies, I'd like to make sure that the Woodstox dependency is not > going to be a problem for people. Other similar packages like WSDL4J or > Woden for example only require the JRE... > > So, what do people think about this dependency on a StAX parser like > Woodstox? > > If there's no objections I'll switch to use Raymond's StAX loaders > around the end of the day on Monday... > > -- > Jean-Sebastien > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
