[jdom-interest] Using NanoXML and JDOM

Dennis Sosnoski dms at sosnoski.com
Mon Oct 1 17:41:44 PDT 2001

Hi Paul,

For my latest test runs I used Crimson SAX2 with JDOM, since Crimson was overall
a little faster than Xerces and didn't have Xerces' startup overhead.

I'd love to try some other SAX2 parsers for the next test run, but haven't found
any that are usable - as far as I've been able to find, neither NanoXML nor
AElfred are *released* in SAX2 flavors. Source for AElfred2 is around various
places, and versions are incorporated into other packages; I tried building GNU
JAXP including AElfred2 but wasn't able to get it to work for my testing. I'll
at least look into the Saxon version for next time.

If anyone has pointers to other SAX2 parsers to try please let me know.

My tests measured memory usage before and after building the document copies,
but always after running through the code to make sure the class loading was
done. I go through some pains to encourage garbage collection before measuring
usage, to make sure I'm only measuring the memory that's actually used for the
documents in a stable system.

  - Dennis

Paul Libbrecht wrote:

> Sir Dennis,
> Funny, i had encountered your benchmarks recently when discovering a
> slight  bit of dom4j.
> Now the definitive thing that's missing in all these is to change the SAX
> parser (though it would add a new dimension).
> Did you not use some profiling tool for the memory allocation ??
> I mean, this should, ideally, measure only the space and time for the
> objects and not for the classes, even classloading time.
> At least for speed, I saw an enormous difference between Saxon's AElfred
> and Xerces (this was the important thing in this case).
> Paul
> On Mardi, octobre 2, 2001, at 12:17  AM, Dennis Sosnoski wrote:
> > http://www.sosnoski.com/opensrc/xmlbench/results.html

More information about the jdom-interest mailing list