Re: [xml] libxml2 review in windows::developer

[Daniel Veillard <veillard redhat com>]

On Fri, Apr 11, 2003 at 12:09:38PM +0200, Peter Jacobi wrote:
> All testing done using C++, libxml2 used via libbxml++. The other parsers 

  I have no idea what libxml++ does on top of libxml2. 

> So what's telling us these numbers:

  Not much to me because I don't know what they benchmarked.

> 1. Allocating the (DOM) tree needs time, and doing SAX or a specialized 
> parser is faster. libxml-SAX wasn't benchmarked.

   So they didn't care to actually look at libxml2 properly.

> 2. Xerces faster than libxml is a bit a mystery, but given the XML above, 
> it may be the 'attribute cost'.

   No idea, or libxml++ side effects. I won't register to get
more informations, I don't care enough. Windows and C++ are really
not my spot, I know where I can optimize libxml2/libxslt , but the
tools to do so are profilers, not random Windows magazine
pseudo-benchmark.

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Veillard      | Red Hat Network https://rhn.redhat.com/
veillard redhat com  | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/