Re: [PEPr] -1 for XML::XML_RPC2

Greg Beaver wrote: > Sergio Carvalho wrote: > >> - Performance hit: I've proved it didn't affect performance. Get some >> numbers like I did. > > > We've been using the client as an example, but the client is never where > the performance matters in XML-RPC. > > The performance hit I would like to measure is on the server end where > script startup time becomes significant due to the need to accept > hundreds/thousands of requests per minute on high volume sites. It'd be the same. Where the bulk of time in the client is in the HTTP request, the bulk of time in the server will be DB/disk access. The setup times will be similar (it's the same code), so will go around the 5ms (for my laptop) value. This is one or two orders of magnitude lower than the response time of a datastore (filesystem or database). > I just attempted to set up a test script on my own computer, but ran > into several issues that ate up all of my time before I was able to get > a working test > > 1) I can't get the Chiara_XML_RPC5 server to work, and can't figure out > why - it works fine as a part of PEAR_Server on my local machine, > there's something I'm doing wrong and can't yet see. > 2) there are short open tags <?= in XML_RPC2's code, and I have those > disabled in php.ini because of unrelated projects that were getting > zonked by short_open_tags. This is a PEAR coding standard, btw - all > tags must be <?php. Are you talking about short PHP tags (<? where <?php should be used) or the shortcut open and echo tag (<?= where the alternative is <?php echo...). I had no idea de latter where disallowed by CS... > > A more significant test would be to take XML_RPC2 and rewrite the _Value > code to match how Chiara_XML_RPC5 does it, so that there are as few > variables as possible in the code itself. Then, we could compare two > servers, one with XML_RPC2 as written, and the other without the _Value > classes. That's quite a lot of work for a test... -- Sérgio Carvalho