W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlsec@w3.org > August 2010

RE: 1 pass vs 2 pass

From: Pratik Datta <pratik.datta@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 10:53:30 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5a6f3ba7-1c3f-4fed-aca8-2412d75b2729@default>
To: Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>, public-xmlsec@w3.org
Yes, my definition of streaming has always been 2-pass.

When you load up an XML into a DOM it explodes in size at least 5x times maybe even 20x times.  This memory increase limits scalability, and it also decreases performance, because DOM results in a lot of little objects and that makes the garbage collector kick in more often.

Streaming, whether 1-pass or 2-pass, solves this problem. With the 2 pass approach you don't have to worry about forward references.  The XPath should still need to be evaluatable in a 1 pass, but the <Signature> can be analyzed or updated in a 2nd pass.

Pratik

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Cantor [mailto:cantor.2@osu.edu] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 10:03 AM
To: public-xmlsec@w3.org
Subject: 1 pass vs 2 pass

I didn't get a clear sense of what the WG consensus is on this, but I raised
this question on the call at the end because it seems like it's pretty
critical in order to evaluate the proposals on XPath.

I think I heard Pratik indicate his working definition for streaming is
2-pass, and I think I understood Meiko's working assumption to be 1-pass. So
shouldn't we agree on one definition?

-- Scott
Received on Tuesday, 10 August 2010 17:54:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:14 UTC