[news.eclipse.technology.equinox] Re: Work items posted

["Jeff McAffer" <jeff_mcaffer_REMOVE@xxxxxxxxxx>]

"Kevin" <kduffey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:b6olbs$r6g$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> I can only give you my own time tables that I have seen in terms of how
fast
> XMLPullParsing is. I was using JDOM on a 11MB file. It ate up 80+MB in
> memory and took over 20 seconds to load/parse on my PIII 800Mhz with 512MB
> RAM. The same file took less than 2 seconds using either of the two
current
> xml pull parser implementations at the xmlpull.org site (xpp3 and
mxparser).
> It didn't come close to even 15MB or memory being used. These are ROUGH
> times and memory consumption, I did not use pro caliber tools.
> I am rather surprised that xmlpull hasn't been getting more attention
given
> its small size (25K), extremely fast speed and less resource usage than a
> SAX2 parser! Again, it may be a bit unconventional compared to
dom/jdom/sax
> parsing, but I find it much faster, easier and more maintanable.
>
> And having used it for some time, I can offer my help in this area.

This sounds great. To try this out in the Eclipse context, could you
prototype pull parsing the plugin structure?  Basically replace the class
PluginParser in org.eclipse.core.runtime.  It is currently a SAX parser.
The DTD is very simple and is spec'd in the runtime doc.  Once we have an
idea of the speed/space improvement there we can recommend to plugin writers
how to us this technique for their parsing.

I have created a bug report for this work.  You can attach a patch or whole
new parser when you feel its worth trying.

Jeff