Scott,
If looking further for possible performance optimizations I see following
directions:
1. In HTTPUtils.post cache all information related to URL - parsed host,
port, protocol, etc, most part of the header for post. Since most client
applications use a single (or at least not many) URLs to
Hello,
I have made some performance comparisons between soap 2.3.1 and my current
code (including all my patches proposed), replacing separately client and
server libs
Here are results:
Client 2.3.1, Server 2.3.1
100.842
96.701
Client current Server 2.3.1
92.733
89.186
Client 2.3.1 Server cu
Hello
I prepared short patch for the client side only - but didn't had possibility
to test it.
Pavel
> -Original Message-
> From: Scott Nichol [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 11:21 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Apache SOAP and request only Web S
> Client achievements are less significally - up 10-15% to current code,
> or -8-9 sec. Probably client code was less affected...
This is consistent with informal client-side comparisons I've done
along the same lines. The last I did was with the nightly Apache
SOAP from 2002-11-13. We saw a f
If it is possible to see an response envelope + your client code - I can
profile it and see what's wrong.
Certanly the test case i've used does not cover all possible cases
Pavel
> -Original Message-
> From: WJCarpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2002
Thinking further about reasons it didn't improved for you - It may happen
that InputStream.read + DocumentBuilder.parse for huge response takes so
much of the whole process , so other parts just do not important and any
difference is just a measurement error. Most changes were done in order to
rat
> Thinking further about reasons it didn't improved for you - It may
> happen that InputStream.read + DocumentBuilder.parse for huge response
> takes so much of the whole process , so other parts just do not
> important and any difference is just a measurement error. Most changes
> were done in or
"WJCarpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [[As a side note, it seems to me that doing a SAX deserialization
> model is no more difficult than the DOM-based model we have now. I
> completely understand why nobody has stepped up to that as an
> *additional* effort for Apache SOAP, which is more
