Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

WS testing (was Re: [aalto-xml-interest] Re: Interesting Aalto reference, linux+jibx+aalto...)

Expand Messages
  • lfs_neves
    ... It sounds cool, I was thinking something similar but using Google Protocol Buffers, I might as well test json. It would make a nice comparison. I will try
    Message 1 of 5 , Feb 2, 2009
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In aalto-xml-interest@yahoogroups.com, Tatu Saloranta
      <tsaloranta@...> wrote:

      > Given above, it might be quite easy to implement json-based web
      > service, where data binding is done using Jackson instead of JAXB. I
      > would expect such a service to be still faster than Jibx
      >
      > What do you think?

      It sounds cool, I was thinking something similar but using Google
      Protocol Buffers, I might as well test json.
      It would make a nice comparison.

      I will try to make something soon.

      Regards.

      --
      Luis Neves
    • Tatu Saloranta
      ... Cool! I have tested PB earlier, and it s quite easy. The main challenge was that it s a bit of apples & oranges, given how tightly coupled PB is. Messages
      Message 2 of 5 , Feb 2, 2009
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 8:56 AM, lfs_neves <lfs_neves@...> wrote:
        > --- In aalto-xml-interest@yahoogroups.com, Tatu Saloranta
        >
        > <tsaloranta@...> wrote:
        >
        >> Given above, it might be quite easy to implement json-based web
        >> service, where data binding is done using Jackson instead of JAXB. I
        >> would expect such a service to be still faster than Jibx
        >>
        >> What do you think?
        >
        > It sounds cool, I was thinking something similar but using Google
        > Protocol Buffers, I might as well test json.
        > It would make a nice comparison.

        Cool! I have tested PB earlier, and it's quite easy. The main
        challenge was that it's a bit of apples & oranges, given how tightly
        coupled PB is. Messages are not self-contained (without schema you
        have little idea what data is about, since integer codes are used for
        message types), and you can't really bind data to other objects,
        AFAIK you must use objects PB generates.
        That's ok as long as test framework doesn't have problems with it --
        in my case it was bit problematic, but I was able to try it out by
        refactoring code. Or you can wrap PB objects with beans, although
        that's akin to writing a data binding lib of your own. :-)

        But it would be very interesting to see how different formats & libs compare!
        So let me know how things work.

        -+ Tatu +-
      • lfs_neves
        ... I ve just posted my test results with JSON as an alternative serialization mechanism using the Jackson Processor... yes it is fast:
        Message 3 of 5 , Feb 8, 2009
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In aalto-xml-interest@yahoogroups.com, Tatu Saloranta
          <tsaloranta@...> wrote:
          >
          > Hi Luis! One idea occured to me today: I don't know how easy it would
          > be to do, but looking at wstest home page, it might be doable,
          > depending on how tightly coupled it is with soap and/or xml.

          ...

          > Given above, it might be quite easy to implement json-based web
          > service, where data binding is done using Jackson instead of JAXB. I
          > would expect such a service to be still faster than Jibx

          I've just posted my test results with JSON as an alternative
          serialization mechanism using the Jackson Processor... yes it is fast:

          http://technotes.blogs.sapo.pt/1708.html


          I've had a small issue in the process of porting the tests to JSON,
          Jackson serialized 0.0f as "0.0" but was unable to deserialize it
          back, it errors out with the message:
          "java.lang.Float from String value '0.0': overflow/underflow, value
          can not be represented as a 32-bit float"

          Other than that it was painless. You've wrote another great parser!

          Regards

          --
          Luis Neves
        • Tatu Saloranta
          ... Great! ... Ah, thanks, that sounds like a bug -- I think it may be due to my misunderstanding some of constants in Float/Double classes (MIN_VALUE is
          Message 4 of 5 , Feb 8, 2009
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 10:51 AM, lfs_neves <lfs_neves@...> wrote:
            > --- In aalto-xml-interest@yahoogroups.com, Tatu Saloranta
            > <tsaloranta@...> wrote:
            >>
            >> Hi Luis! One idea occured to me today: I don't know how easy it would
            >> be to do, but looking at wstest home page, it might be doable,
            >> depending on how tightly coupled it is with soap and/or xml.
            >
            > ...
            >
            >> Given above, it might be quite easy to implement json-based web
            >> service, where data binding is done using Jackson instead of JAXB. I
            >> would expect such a service to be still faster than Jibx
            >
            > I've just posted my test results with JSON as an alternative
            > serialization mechanism using the Jackson Processor... yes it is fast:
            >
            > http://technotes.blogs.sapo.pt/1708.html

            Great!

            > I've had a small issue in the process of porting the tests to JSON,
            > Jackson serialized 0.0f as "0.0" but was unable to deserialize it
            > back, it errors out with the message:
            > "java.lang.Float from String value '0.0': overflow/underflow, value
            > can not be represented as a 32-bit float"

            Ah, thanks, that sounds like a bug -- I think it may be due to my
            misunderstanding some of constants in Float/Double classes (MIN_VALUE
            is epsilon, and not negative number with highest absolute value).
            I'll definitely need to fix this.

            > Other than that it was painless. You've wrote another great parser!

            Thank you.

            -+ Tatu +-
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.