xom-interest AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: XOM API for Processing XML with Java

List archive

RE: [XOM-interest] static Builder.create methods instead of const ructors?

From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo AT metalab.unc.edu>
To: "New, Cecil (GEAE)" <cecil.new AT ae.ge.com>
Cc: xom-interest AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: RE: [XOM-interest] static Builder.create methods instead of const ructors?
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 09:03:22 -0400

I can't judge the overhead required for a builder. But by analogy, app
servers do pool database connections - for which to open incurs high
overhead. And they make a huge difference in performance. If builders also
incur such overhead and many are needed and used concurrently, then pooling
would make sense for them as well.

Absolutely. I'm just trying to understand why that should be done inside XOM rather than inside the application. If there's something inside XOM that would prevent builders from being pooled, that would be a real concern; but I don't think there is any such problem.
--

Elliotte Rusty Harold
elharo AT metalab.unc.edu
Effective XML (Addison-Wesley, 2003)
http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/effectivexml
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0321150406/ref%3Dnosim/cafeaulaitA

RE: [XOM-interest] static Builder.create methods instead of const ructors?, New, Cecil (GEAE), 08/13/2004
- RE: [XOM-interest] static Builder.create methods instead of const ructors?, Elliotte Rusty Harold, 08/13/2004
- Re: [XOM-interest] static Builder.create methods instead of const ructors?, Wolfgang Hoschek, 08/13/2004
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- RE: [XOM-interest] static Builder.create methods instead of const ructors?, Wolfgang Hoschek, 08/13/2004
- RE: [XOM-interest] static Builder.create methods instead of const ructors?, Brendan . Johnston, 08/13/2004