All, I second Dennis' opinion here. During the start of Axis2 and Axiom we had some discussions about this issue. However, it turned out that WSS functions very often need a full document model to work properly.
Some weeks ago I had a similar discssuion (not on this mailing list though) regarding this/a similar topic. During Signature and during encryption/decryption the XML document is often reordered, elements are replaced, for example during encryption and decryption and so on. Thus we could then question if the code that implements the "smart enough feature" to decide when to use Axiom DOM or "real" DOM uses more CPU cycles than the "classic" C14N. Regards, Werner > -----Original Message----- > From: ext Dennis Sosnoski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 8:29 AM > To: Paul Fremantle > Cc: Colm O hEigeartaigh; Werner Dittmann; jimmy Zhang; > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: WSS4J 1.5.4 Encryption Performance Question > > Hi Paul, > > I don't think that C14N support in Axiom is likely to be of > much direct > benefit for performance. Axiom is slower and more > memory-intensive than > standard DOM implementations when a document model needs to > be build - > its advantage is that barring signing and such, most times > you can get > away without the need for a document model - so I don't see > that using > Axiom rather than a standard DOM is really going to help. > > The exception would be cases where only some tokens in the header are > being signed, which is actually the case that started this > discussion. > If the Axiom+Rampart+WSS4J combination is smart enough to > only build the > Axiom DOM for the header tokens that are being signed, this > should give > much better performance than when the entire message has to > be converted > to a DOM. > > I look forward to comparing the performance using Axiom C14N > vs. using > standard DOM, and will give this a try as soon as it becomes > an option > in the configuration. > > - Dennis > > > Paul Fremantle wrote: > >> IMO > >> C14N (in the case of signature) and DOM are the main culprits for > >> performance as far as WSS4J is concerned, not PKC. > >> > > > > I believe that some students have built out C14N directly > in Axiom and > > are planning to contribute it to Axiom shortly. That should > make a big > > difference. > > > > Paul > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
