Re: [xml] libxml2 review in windows::developer
- From: Daniel Veillard <veillard redhat com>
- To: Peter Jacobi <pj walter-graphtek com>
- Cc: Holger Rauch <holger rauch heitec de>, xml gnome org
- Subject: Re: [xml] libxml2 review in windows::developer
- Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 06:25:14 -0400
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
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/
] [Thread Prev