Re: [PATCH] Add a basic date format check to DIDL-Lite parser

On Do, 2011-07-14 at 01:49 +0300, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
> Hi,
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Sven Neumann <s neumann raumfeld com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 09:58 +0200, Jens Georg wrote:
> >> > Could we try to keep the DIDL-Lite parser as efficient as possible? It
> >> > is already rather slow the way it is implemented right now. This is a
> >> > real problem on embedded devices.
> >>
> >> Can you point out the other issues you're seeing? Maybe we can fix them
> >> this cycle?
> >
> > I can't point at a particular issue. All I can say is that parsing
> > DIDL-Lite takes a considerable amount of CPU cycles. It might help to
> > use a SAX based parser instead of building the DOM, but that would be a
> > major rewrite of gupnp-av and I am not sure if it's worth the effort.
>   Especially since we don't know for certain that DOM building takes
> most of the CPU. For example, It could very well be the gobject
> creation.
I did small test parsing ~3800 DIDL iitem snippets, the time
distribution in there looks like:
	10% g_object_unref
	14% g_object_new
	70% xmlRecoverMemory

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]