- From: Pratik Datta <pratik.datta@oracle.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 10:53:30 -0700 (PDT)
- 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