Hi Georg

On 18.02.2009 10:13:21 Georg Datterl wrote:
> Hi Jeremias,
> > I've also made performance measurements as part of this effort which 
> > highlights why it was done in the first place:
> > http://people.apache.org/~jeremias/fop/benchmark-2009-02-13/
> I'm probably missing something important here, but regarding the first graph:
> Isn't "direct" what ordinary users of fop do? Take a fo-file and then render 
> it? 


> Isn't "direct-via-if" what ordinary users of fop will do in the future, if IF 
> is the default? 


> Isn't the work done in "direct-via-if" the sum of the work done in "to-if" 
> and "from-if"? 

No. "to-if" renders the FO and uses IFSerializer (called by IFRenderer) to
write an intermediate file. "from-if" parses the intermediate file
(using IFParser) and generates a series of calls against an
IFDocumentHandler and IFPainter implementation. So:

"direct-via-if" = "to-if" + "from-if" - serializing IF - parsing IF
"to-if" + "from-if" = "direct-via-if" + serializing IF + parsing IF

The main motivation for the new IF is the fact that "serializing AT XML"
and especially "parsing AT XML" is very costly.

See also http://people.apache.org/~jeremias/fop/renderer-design-new.png
which shows the two different paths.

> And, if all the above answers are yes, why is the performance gain
> noticed in "from-if" not more obviously related to the performance gain
> in "direct-via-if"? 

There was a "no" above so this is not applicable anymore. I hope I could
clear up the gap.

Jeremias Maerki

Reply via email to