hi Dan,
thanks for your work on XML/SOAP performance and i look forward ot read your
article.
i am the author of SoapRMI/Java and wanted to add some comments. as of SoapRMI (now
called XSOAP) please mention in your article also that the updated version of XSOAP
1.3 will address some performance
Berin Loritsch wrote:
> If the String serializer can accept chunks (which I suspect is what
> SoapRMI is doing) then the Serializer can start the SOAP response
> almost immediately. The String serializer would be sending
> characters( char[], int begin, int length ) messages for each chunk
> it
what it would be. If you have any ideas I might be
>able to try to make them work.
>-Taras
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Berin Loritsch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 7:42 AM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Re: Latency P
would be. If you have any ideas I might be
able to try to make them work.
-Taras
> -Original Message-
> From: Berin Loritsch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 7:42 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Latency Performance of AXIS vs. Apache SO
Dan Davis wrote:
> Berin,
>
> Sorry about responding to the wrong name. I'm very tired ...
>
> Feedback from implementors is critical to understand performance
> numbers, so I'll keep asking.
;P I get that alot (my wife's aunts call me Daren).
I am not by any means considered a cheif impleme
Berin,
Sorry about responding to the wrong name. I'm very tired ...
Feedback from implementors is critical to understand performance
numbers, so I'll keep asking.
Brian,
Thanks for your speedy feedback. I'm revising the paper and wanted to
update to include Axis. It seems clear that if I do include AXIS
in the article, I'll also have to address these differences. I may speak
about AXIS at the talk and leave it out of the article.
Dan Davis wrote:
> I've been doing some simple experiements that compare AXIS,
> Apache SOAP, and other implementations (SoapRMI).
>
> One test requests a single string (size 200, 400, and 800), and
> another an array of integers (array size 200, 400, and 800).
> There's no argument to the functi
