psyc-mirrors/libpsyc
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of git://git.psyc.eu/libpsyc synced 2024-08-15 03:19:02 +00:00
Code Issues Releases Wiki Activity

Merge branch 'master' of supraverse.net:libpsyc

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
tg(x) 2011-05-24 20:41:39 +02:00
commit 866e705c07
1 changed files with 51 additions and 43 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

94
bench/benchmark.org
View file

@ -25,8 +25,9 @@ Here's a way to model this in PSYC:
** A message with JSON-unfriendly characters
This message contains some characters which are
impractical to encode in JSON. Let's see how much
performance impact this has.
impractical to encode in JSON. We should probably
put a lot more inside to actually see an impact
on performance.
#+INCLUDE: packets/json-unfriendly.xml src xml
#+INCLUDE: packets/json-unfriendly.json src js
@ -34,7 +35,8 @@ performance impact this has.
** A message with XML-unfriendly characters
Same test with characters which aren't practical
in the XML syntax.
in the XML syntax, yet we should put more of
them inside.
#+INCLUDE: packets/xml-unfriendly.xml src xml
#+INCLUDE: packets/xml-unfriendly.json src js
@ -170,6 +172,49 @@ not performed.
These tests were performed on a 2.53 GHz Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo P9500 CPU.
* Criticism
Are we comparing apples and oranges? Yes and no, depends on what you
need. XML is a syntax best suited for complex structured data in
well-defined formats - especially good for text mark-up. JSON is a syntax
intended to hold arbitrarily structured data suitable for immediate
inclusion in javascript source codes. The PSYC syntax is an evolved
derivate of RFC 822, the syntax used by HTTP and E-Mail, and is therefore
limited in the kind and depth of data structures that can be represented
with it, but in exchange it is highly performant at doing just that.
In fact we are looking into suitable syntax extensions to represent
generic structures and semantic signatures, but for now PSYC only
provides for simple typed values and lists of typed values.
Another aspect is the availability of these formats for spontaneous
use. You could generate and parse JSON yourself but you have to be
careful about escaping. XML can be rendered manually if you know your
data will not break the syntax, but you can't really parse it without
a bullet proof parser. PSYC is easy to render and parse yourself for
simple tasks, as long as your body does not contain "\n|\n" and your
variables do not contain newlines.
After all it is up to you to find out which format fulfils your
requirements the best. We use PSYC for the majority of messaging where
JSON and XMPP aren't efficient and opaque enough, but we employ XML and
JSON as payloads within PSYC for data that doesn't fit the PSYC model.
For some reason all three formats are being used for messaging, although
only PSYC was actually designed for that purpose.
* Caveats
In every case we'll compare performance of parsing and re-rendering
these messages, but consider also that the applicative processing
of an XML DOM tree is more complicated than just accessing
certain elements in a JSON data structure or PSYC variable
mapping.
For a speed check in real world conditions which also consider the
complexity of processing incoming messages we should compare
the performance of a chat client using the two protocols,
for instance by using libpurple with XMPP and PSYC accounts.
To this purpose we first need to integrate libpsyc into libpurple.
* Conclusions
The Internet has developed two major breeds of protocol formats.
@ -187,46 +232,6 @@ combines the compactness and efficiency of binary protocols with the
extensibility of text-based protocols and still provides for enough
data structuring to rarely require the use of other data formats.
* Criticism
Are we comparing apples and oranges? Yes and no, depends on what you
need. XML is a syntax best suited for complex structured data in
well-defined formats - especially good for text mark-up. JSON is a syntax
intended to hold arbitrarily structured data suitable for immediate
inclusion in javascript source codes. The PSYC syntax is an evolved
derivate of RFC 822, the syntax used by HTTP and E-Mail, and is therefore
limited in the kind and depth of data structures that can be represented
with it, but in exchange it is highly performant at doing just that.
So it is up to you to find out which format fulfils your
requirements the best. We use PSYC for the majority of messaging where
JSON and XMPP aren't efficient and opaque enough, but we employ XML and
JSON as payloads within PSYC for data that doesn't fit the PSYC model.
For some reason all three formats are being used for messaging, although
only PSYC was actually designed for that purpose.
Another aspect is the availability of these formats for spontaneous
use. You could generate and parse JSON yourself but you have to be
careful about escaping. XML can be rendered manually if you know your
data will not break the syntax, but you can't really parse it without
a bullet proof parser. PSYC is easy to render and parse yourself for
simple tasks, as long as your body does not contain "\n|\n" and your
variables do not contain newlines.
* Caveats
In every case we'll compare performance of parsing and re-rendering
these messages, but consider also that the applicative processing
of an XML DOM tree is more complicated than just accessing
certain elements in a JSON data structure or PSYC variable
mapping.
For a speed check in real world conditions which also consider the
complexity of processing incoming messages we should compare
the performance of a chat client using the two protocols,
for instance by using libpurple with XMPP and PSYC accounts.
To this purpose we first need to integrate libpsyc into libpurple.
* Futures
After a month of development libpsyc is already performing pretty
@ -253,6 +258,9 @@ specialized parsers and renderers to be provided.
* Appendix
** Tools used
This document and its benchmarks are distributed with libpsyc.
See http://about.psyc.eu/libpsyc on how to obtain it.
*** libpsyc
: make bench