Hi, Werner,
I think you hit the nail on the head. I guess my major problem is not the classloading itself, but the fact that I left out the word "framework" when dealing with Castor. In truth, I lost sight of the fact that it is not always appropriate to use a framework. As you mentioned, in many, if not most cases, the initial startup time is not important. I'll just have to be more realistic in those rare cases where I need to avoid the overhead of class loading and avoid a "framework" like Castor and just jump in directly with good 'ol SAX. In most other cases, however, when using Castor is appropriate, I'll try to think of ways to initiate the classloaded before hand during system initialisation and not at the time of a user's request. Thanks for bringing me back to reality. ;-) And I will try out your suggestion and run a more valid test 100 times or so. I'll report back to you with the results if I find anything interesting. I don't expect to get around to that for a while, though... Cheers, Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: Werner Guttmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 27 December 2004 22:21 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [castor-user] RE: [XML] Performance issues > > > Dave, > > running a test exactly once to report a problem with your > execution time does not really reflect reality. Having said that, > I agree that 24 seconds (even > 16 seconds) is way too long compared to 0.11 seconds, but there's > always a startup time associated with any framework (irrespective > whether you are > using mapping files or pre-compiled class-descriptors. > > Why don't you run the tests e.g 100 times and see what I get as > the average execution time. If that number still does not meet > your expectations, we'll > need to analyze what is going wrong. > > Regards > Werner ----------------------------------------------------------- If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of: unsubscribe castor-user
