XOM API for Processing XML with Java

[Wolfgang Hoschek <whoschek AT lbl.gov>]

Precisely :-)
A general purpose pool holding N builders isn't needed in most cases 
though, just a class that maintains (and can return) one builder per 
thread.

On Aug 13, 2004, at 4:35 AM, New, Cecil (GEAE) wrote:

> 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.
>
> Just my $.02
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wolfgang Hoschek [mailto:whoschek AT lbl.gov]
> Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 9:42 PM
> To: xom-interest AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: [XOM-interest] static Builder.create methods instead of
> constructors?
>
>
> On Aug 12, 2004, at 5:41 PM, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
>
> > I just don't see the problem here. The only reason you would ever care
> > about this is if for some strange reason you're creating thousands and
> > thousands of Builder objects, and that's not a plausible use case
> > because builders are reusable. If you want to parse documents in
> > parallel in separate threads, give every thread gets its own builder.
> > Problem solved.
> >
> > You seem to be proposing a very complex solution to a very easily
> > solved problem. Is there something more complicated here I'm not
> > seeing?
>
> It's obvious for simple demo usage or for hard-wired designs where one
> can make assumptions about usage, and non-trivial if you have a
> framework where it's classes are decoupled and should not care about in
> which thread and in which environment they are being used. For example,
> think webservice in container with concurrent requests, with XML
> parsing usage decentralized in all sorts of corners of the framework.
> You are not in control when and where and how new threads are created,
> you just live in arbitrary contexts...
>
> Anyway, the bottom line is that Builder reuse is often a lot more
> complicated than simply constructing a new Builder() in each
> method/class where one is required, and so they're not reused in
> practise, and so the performance penalty is indeed large. What do other
> folks think? What's their current practise? A new Builder everytime you
> need one? Curious...
>
> _______________________________________________
> XOM-interest mailing list
> XOM-interest AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/xom-interest