Re: XMLSERVICE with .Net

Apologies to HR - I'd not read far enough.

I still believe there are issues that caused certain parties to create XMLSERVICE - seems I heard stuff at the COMMON session on it this year. But memory is dim and stomach is empty!

Later
Vern

On 8/5/2012 8:26 PM, Vernon Hamberg wrote:

HR - no one has presented any benchmarks - some downloaded code and say
things like "it looks like" - that is no test! That is speculation in
the english language.

Back to my pizza!
Vern

On 8/5/2012 10:22 AM, Henrik Rützou wrote:

Vernon,

do you think that Nathat is "speculating" - he is the only on that actually
runs test -
all others are just "speculating"!

On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Vernon Hamberg <vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

Gentle folk!

Speculate all you want - better to run tests.

Brian was very closely involved with this whole thing from early on -
I'll take his word on things before that of people who've never used it.

Cheers - and off to go canoeing on our lovely lakes in Minneapolis!
Vern

On 8/5/2012 12:07 AM, Nathan Andelin wrote:

From: Joe Pluta
Nathan seems to think (and I would agree) that you can skip the stored
procedure entirely and just call the program that the stored procedure

calls.

Thanks for getting my back, Joe. This thread motivated me to download

the source code for XMLSERVICE, which is a library of several source files
and members. I reviewed the code for the XMLCGI and XMLSERVICE programs,
and several others.

It looks like XMLCGI uses an SQL CLI interface for calling the stored

procedures rather than calling the procedures directly. But I'd bet that
QZDASOINIT also uses some sort of SQL interface for calling the stored
procedures too.

At any rate, we end up comparing:

.Net App <==> DB Driver <==> QZDASOINIT <==> SQL Interface <==> Stored

Procedures

.Net App <==> REST Web Service <==> Apache Server <==> XMLCGI <==> SQL

Interface <==> Stored Procedures

-----

Since the 2nd interface includes an HTTP Server in the middle, should we

ASS-U-ME that it carries more overhead on the server? I don't think so!

For starters, I added all the CPU time consumed by the HTTP Server Jobs

and my RPG program which also uses an SQL CLI interface to generate SQL
result sets, reads them, and generates a CSV formatted response.

Then I used Visual Foxpro and an IBM i Access 7.1 DB Driver to download

the same files, and tracked the CPU time consumed by the QZDASOINIT Job.

Guess which interface consumed more CPU?

The QZDASOINIT Job actually consumed 32% more CPU time. It evidently has

MORE overhead.

Notwithstanding, we're only talking about 88 milliseconds (CGI

Interface) vs. 116 milliseconds (QZDASOINIT) to generate and output a
formatted stream of 2,249 records, for example.

-Nathan.

--
This is the Web Enabling the AS400 / iSeries (WEB400) mailing list
To post a message email: WEB400@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/web400
or email: WEB400-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/web400.