use Perl

• The Need for Speed (Score:1)

  by barries (2159)

  XML::Filter::Dispatcher is definitely slower than TWIG. It's still young and it will probably never be as optimized as TWIG is for TWIG's purpose.

  That being said, you may want to look at the struct() and hash() extension functions that return Perl data structures something like TWIGs. <plug>My shiny, tiny new BFD [cpan.org] module might help you see them:

     'foo' => [ 'hash()' => sub { use BFD; d xvalue } ],

  ;)</plug>.

  Along with optmization, I'd like to enable X::F::D to gener
• Please do (Score:1)

  by bart (450)

  If anyone wants to see the two approaches and the test data, let me know and I'll post it

  Yes, please. You see, I've written my own, (as yet) unreleased XML parsing module which, from the little I know of XML::Twig, and judging by the name of the other module you mention, sounds like it's pretty much in the same realm. Before I even contemplate of releasing it, I'd like to port your test script in order to use my own module, and compare code and speed to the two modules you've used.
  • Benchmark programs are available (Score:1)

    by toma (3098)

    Performance Comparison Between SAX XML::Filter::Dispatcher and XML::Twig [tomacorp.com] with test data is available.

    I'll write more about the testing, including more detail about the results.

    --
    It should work perfectly the first time! - toma
• Comments (Score:2)

  by mir (51)

  I have posted some comments on the article [xmltwig.com] and a faster version of the XML::Twig code on the XML::Twig page [xmltwig.com].

  --
  mirod