Date:         Thu, 6 Jan 2005 10:25:01 +0000
Reply-To:     "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Dr Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Efficiency of SRW vs. SRU clients
Comments: To: "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Comments: cc: [log in to unmask]
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed

>>>> Average response time for the queries is 445ms. [...] I then tried
>>>> [...] Average response time is 46ms.
>>> _including network overhead_?  Man, that is one deeply doo-dooey
>>> toolkit.
>> This is probably Axis. Axis is not a particularly efficient engine,
> I think that "not particularly efficient" is a rather charitable
> description here, rather along the lines of describing the Pacific
> Ocean as "not particularly dry".

The casting to and from the appropriate object structures is, afaik, the
only additional step.  Lovely, huh?  Simple Protocol for Accessing
Objects.
Reason number 1 why people use PVM or MPI for real distributed computing
rather than SOAP.

My own (minimally worked on) client code is the other way round because
once I get back the response I put it into a SOAP wrapper and give it to
the SOAP engine to process into objects for me. =)

I'll try a similar experiment to Ralph, though.

Rob

       ,'/:.          Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
     ,'-/::::.        http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
   ,'--/::(@)::.      Dept. of Computer Science, Room 805
,'---/::::::::::.    University of Liverpool
____/:::::::::::::.  L5R Shop: http://www.cardsnotwords.com/
I L L U M I N A T I