From kde-core-devel  Tue Dec 07 17:57:32 2004
From: Frans Englich <frans.englich () telia ! com>
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 17:57:32 +0000
To: kde-core-devel
Subject: Re: XML/XSD based configuration files.
Message-Id: <200412071804.22848.frans.englich () telia ! com>
X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-core-devel&m=110244225219311

On Tuesday 07 December 2004 17:21, George Staikos wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 December 2004 12:13, Daniel Molkentin wrote:
> > Am Dienstag, 7. Dezember 2004 17:49 schrieb George Staikos:
> > > > I have no particular opinion on the KConfig side, but the concept put
> > > > in a general perspective -- to use XML -- is very interesting. I
> > > > think that not using XML for anything data related(with exceptions)
> > > > is equivalent to hitting oneself with a brick. Unfortunately we still
> > > > do it, and it will take long before the "aha" goes through the
> > > > audience at large, I think.
> > >
> > >     Do you realize how slow it is to parse this stuff relative to our
> > > current format?  I've been doing lots of Kst profiling lately and XML
> > > parsing is a huge factor for us.  I'm glad we don't use XML for KConfig
> > > natively.
> >
> > Did you use libxml or the Qt classes? I can't find the link currently,
> > but there was a benchmark where some xml parsers were tested. libxml was
> > the fastest and QDom the slowest implementation. The trolls promised to
> > deliver a faster DOM implementation for Qt 4, so we just have to check
> > wether it can take on libxml's speed. it's not XML that's slow.
>
>    Both.  Actually one of the slowest components uses libxml I think.

I assume you talk about libxml2 when you write libxml.

AFAIK, you'll have to look far for anything as fast and feature complete as 
libxml2.

Here's a benchmark. Comparing to Qt is... cute:

http://xmlbench.sourceforge.net/results/benchmark200402/index.html

(Daniel, it was perhaps this link you were referring to?)


Cheers,

		Frans