[jdom-interest] RE: Memory and Speed problems with SAXBuilder

[Malachi de AElfweald]

Currently, for a workaround, I am using DOMParser and passing that into 
DOMBuilder.
Instead of 87 seconds, takes about 4.6 seconds.

Mal

On Sat, 1 Mar 2003 17:57:11 +0100, MarkW <mark.wilson at wilsoncom.de> wrote:

> Hi people,
> I would also be very interested in a JDOM-Version for JDK 1.4.1 with the
> StringBuffer-bug workaround. I´m also having major performance problems
> handling relatively small (ca. 800K) files.
> Is there any possibility of a beta 9 release? Sure would make life alot
> easier :-)
>
> Regards,
> Mark
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: jdom-interest-admin at jdom.org [mailto:jdom-interest-admin at jdom.org] 
>> On Behalf Of Laurent Bihanic
>> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 11:57 AM
>> To: malachi at tremerechantry.com
>> Cc: JDOM-interest
>> Subject: Re: [jdom-interest] RE: Memory and Speed problems with 
>> SAXBuilder
>>
>>
>>
>> Malachi de AElfweald wrote:
>> > I can't downgrade the JVM. How would I upgrade to a newer version? 
>> CVS?
>>
>> Yes, unless Jason decides for a quick code freeze for a beta9.
>>
>> Jason, what's your current view on the beta9 planning ?
>>
>> Laurent
>>
>>
>> > > Malachi
>> > > On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:47:27 +0100, Laurent Bihanic > 
>> <laurent.bihanic at atosorigin.com> wrote:
>> > >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> Malachi de AElfweald wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Worst performer was SAXBuilder (which I originally used because we 
>> >>> were building from
>> >>> an InputStream).  Also, SAXBuilder was the ONLY one that required 
>> the >>> huge amount of
>> >>> heap space.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> You are probably using JDOM beta8 with JDK 1.4.1. These two are >> 
>> incompatible due to the memory leak bug in StringBuffer introduced in >> 
>> JDK 1.4.1.
>> >> For more information, please see >> 
>> http://developer.java.sun.com/developer/bugParade/bugs/4724129.html
>> >>
>> >> Sun does not plan to fix this bug until JDK 1.5 (Tiger).
>> >>
>> >> To fix this problem, you have 2 solutions:
>> >> 1. Stick to JDOM beta8 but downgrade to JDK 1.4.0 or 1.3.1
>> >> 2. Stick to JDK 1.4.1 and upgrade to the latest JDOM which includes a 
>> >> workaround for the JDK bug.
>> >>
>> >> Laurent
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> To control your jdom-interest membership:
>> http://lists.denveronline.net/mailman/options/jdom-interest/yo
> uraddr at yourhost.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> To control your jdom-interest membership:
> http://lists.denveronline.net/mailman/options/jdom- 
> interest/youraddr at yourhost.com
>
>



--