Since I did not get any answers, I am wondering if I am missing something and if my question make sense. What I am trying to understand if that if I have two implementation choices:
1) JXPath on top of Java objects Or 2) Java objects -> XML serialized -> Xpath with something like Xalan What will be faster/better? I am sure that it will depend on the complexity of the Java object/XML tree as well as the kind of Xpath queries, but I am wondering if anyone did any kind of performance testing in this area. Thanks. Thomas -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 10:51 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [JXPath] Performance I did a couple of searches in the mailing list and on the web to try to et performance information on JXPath. I did not find too much result, so I am asking the question directly to the mailing list. Anyone is any kind of performance numbers/comparisons between JXPath and other Xpath processors that they could share? More specifically, here is what I am looking for. Assuming that I have an application processing XML documents. This application manipulates XML documents themselves (string and DOM representation) as well as a Java bean object tree representing those documents (typed/dedicated tree for each type of document). If I need to do some Xpath processing on those documents, what will be the fastest: using something like Xalan to apply Xpath on the DOM tree or using something like JXPath on the java bean object tree? Thanks. Thomas
