----- Original Message ----- From: "Jon Scott Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 8:03 PM Subject: Re: [patch] catalina base64, optimizations and code cleanup
[snip] > My decision to use Catalina' code is based entirely on the fact that > Catalina is *by far* the most used piece of software on Jakarta. Something > like 100-200,000 downloads/week. If the Base64 implementation sucked, it > would have been discovered a long time ago. We have discoverd over the years that the performance of XML-RPC can be quite difficult to predict - for some reason some XML parsers perform very badly and yet they are perfectly good XML parsers. > > That said, we *have* to get rid of the LGPL one. We just can't have that in > CVS. It was a terrible idea to spend time tuning it. It should have been > swapped out a long time ago. Sorry - Open Source licencing theology is not one of my passions;) > > Note, I did introduce a potential bottle neck in the xmlrpc code in that in > one case, I had to allocate a String in order to convert from byte[] to > char[]. If you are willing to write an implementation of Base64 that outputs > a char[] directly (like the GPL one did), that would be great. MinML-RPC (from http://www.wilson.co.uk) has a Base64 module which performs pretty much as well as the old one in the Helma implementation (I have used Hannes' benchmarks on both implementations - sometime I win sometimes, Hannes wins!). MinML-RPC is released under a BSD licence and you are most welcome to take what you would like from the code base. > At CollabNet, we aren't passing binary data around over XML-RPC, so we won't > be hitting that code. Yes, but surely Apache XML-RPC is being developed and supported for a wider audience than CollabNet. Or have I misunderstood something? John Wilson The Wilson Partnership http://www.wilson.co.uk
