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

Here's another quote:

In terms of performance alone, it is clearly the case that MSXML-SAX,
Xerces, or XMLBooster would be preferred over libxml(++) and MSXML-DOM. I
was surprised by the poor performance of the libxml parser, given its
reputation. I should point out that I did not attempt to check out the speed
of the raw libxml (without libxml++), as the purpose of the exercise was to
determine the combination of performance and ease of use for the C++
programmer. It is conceivable that the poor performance is in the libxml++
layer alone, but I doubt that. However, the errors discussed in the sidebar,
"Compiling Woes and libxml++," pertain only to libxml++, not to libxml

I've CCed the author, so you can tell him how wrong he is.

Matthew, please try with a recent version of libxml++ so we know if it's
still slow compared to raw libxml. We think it probably is much better now.
And please mail the libxml++ mailing list if you have a compilation problem
- don't keep fixes to yourself.

Murray Cumming
murrayc usa net 

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