On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 14:44 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > XercesDOMParser *parser = new XercesDOMParser;
> > DOMTreeErrorReporter *errReporter = new DOMTreeErrorReporter ();
>
> Do you really need to build a DOM tree?
No I don't, but I have also tried the SAX parser with the same results
>
> > It seems that each call to event () is fairly expensive - running at
> about 23 docs/sec
> > on my system here at work
>
> I can't give an opinion on this performance figure, since you've provided
> no information about your hardware, operating system, or compiler.
CPU Freq Size Impl. Mask Die Ambient
Speed Unit
--- -------- ---------- ------ ---- -------- --------
----- ----
MB/P0 1002 MHz 1MB US-IIIi 2.4 - -
MB/P1 1002 MHz 1MB US-IIIi 2.4 - -
Solaris 2.8 Sun-Fire-V210
Sun WorkShop 6 update 2 C 5.3 Patch 111679-14 2004/02/20
>
> > MemBufInputSource *buffer = new MemBufInputSource ( (const XMLByte *)
> xml,
> > strlen ( xml ),
> > id,
> > false );
>
> It's much better to create an object as small as MemBufInputSource on the
> stack:
Thanks for the tip
>
> MemBufInputSource buffer((const XMLByte *) xml, strlen ( xml ), id,
> false);
>
> parser->parse ( buffer );
>
> If you don't really need DOM trees, then you probably shouldn't build
> them. Also, there will be a certain amount of overhead for that does not
> vary according the the size of the document. Some of it you can
> potentially avoid, and some you cannot. For example, if you know the
> schemas you'll be working with up front, you can cache them in the parser.
>
> Dave
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--
Thanks
----------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
