yes, you will have to experiment what the threshold is, as I don't
remember, I ended up just doing the file method on the thumbs, and
blob on the xml, cuz I rarely send in big xml, but the images were
always to big.
The issue doesn't seem to effect info coming from the bean to
witango, so I have always kept that in memory.
--
Robert Garcia
President - BigHead Technology
VP Application Development - eventpix.com
13653 West Park Dr
Magalia, Ca 95954
ph: 530.645.4040 x222 fax: 530.645.4040
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bighead.net/ - http://eventpix.com/
On Jun 14, 2006, at 10:16 AM, John McGowan wrote:
I might have to consider doing the _file version of my method xslt
method. I suppose I could even set a threshold based on the length
of the variable, right? and have the witango code decide which
version of the bean method to call.
/John
Robert Garcia wrote:
its not just the debugging. In my notes on doing the beans, with
the xml stuff I did, and with jmagick, the bean chokes on input of
large data. Any bean method, if you pass more than a few K to it,
you will lose all of the efficiency that you got from doing the
bean in the first place.
So, what I do, is I always have to methods for the same thing,
like String doMyXMLthing(inxml String) and String doMyXMLthing_file
(inxml String)
The second one, you send in a file reference to the bean, and let
the bean read from disk, it is a pain in the ass, I know, it
should all work in memory, but you will find, there is a size of
the inputed string, that will be much faster if you write to a
file in witango, and pass just the path to the bean. I don't
remember how big, but I think somewhere between 100k to a meg.
As far as I know, there is no workaround for this, I spent hours
trying to find if there was any way around it, but it seems there
is an issue with the bean handler, and witango never responded to
me regarding it.
My goal was to have methods for xml and images, that only required
memory, but this issue makes it impossible.
And yes, big debug xml will choke witango, but I haven't found
that to be an issue, cuz when you turn debug off, it goes away,
but when debug shows you the results of a huge var, it can take a
long time.
--
Robert Garcia
President - BigHead Technology
VP Application Development - eventpix.com
13653 West Park Dr
Magalia, Ca 95954
ph: 530.645.4040 x222 fax: 530.645.4040
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bighead.net/ - http://eventpix.com/
On Jun 14, 2006, at 9:04 AM, John McGowan wrote:
I've always thought that debugging didn't have much of an effect
on the performance of a TAF. I always knew that lots of
debugging information caused a lot of extra traffic to be sent
back in the http response, and I understood that pages may take
longer to load when you have the addition of many many kilobytes
of text added to the resulting webpage, but i ran into something
here today that showed me there is more to it.
I wrote a java bean to essentially mirror the functionality of
the @XSLT tag but using the newest version of Xalan-J instead of
the Xalan-C included with Witango. I'm doing this to benefit
form features that re in Xalan-J that are not part of Xalan-C.
I have a page that sends a very large XML document to that bean
to be processed by a stylesheet. The page was taking a long time
to load and the last timestamp in the debugging output was always
over 10000. Each time the XSL processing bean was called, the
input and ouput xml was being included in the debugging
information, and it was looking to me like the xsl processing was
taking up all the time. However when i turned off debugging, i
noticed the page loaded much quicker and the time it took to
execute on the server was on the order of 1-2 seconds instead of
10-20.
Witango was really chewing up CPU simply writing those very large
XML results to the debugging output.
Anybody else ever run into the same thing?
--
John McGowan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
P 847.608.6900 x 110
F 847.608.9501
____________________________________________________________________
____
TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/developer/maillist.taf
_____________________________________________________________________
___
TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/developer/maillist.taf
--
John McGowan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
P 847.608.6900 x 110
F 847.608.9501
______________________________________________________________________
__
TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/developer/maillist.taf
________________________________________________________________________
TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/developer/maillist.taf
