XML Serializer in CF (slow)
in [Compact Framework]
|
From: Batvanio on 5 Jan 2010 13:50 Hello We are using XML serialization to serialize a large array of objects. We have two versions of the same application - one for standard PC (Windows XP Embedded, using the regular .NET framework - currently 2.0), and a CF version running on Win CE 6.0 (using .NET compact framework 2.0 as well). We have observerd a huge difference in performance using XML serializer between the standard and compact framework. Using excactly the same hardware ( an ICOP 800 Mhz SoC - based system), the XP Embedded version took about 50 TIMES faster than the CE version. Same application, same data, same hardware. Does anyone have any suggestion where should we look to improve this? Any alternative serialization platforms? We still prefer to use XML rather than binary serialization if possible because of future interoperability with other software packages.... Thanks, Ivan
From: Ginny Caughey on 6 Jan 2010 12:54 Ivan, I know you said you prefer XML serialization over binary, but this binary serializer is a lot faster: http://www.codeproject.com/KB/cs/CF_serializer.aspx -- Ginny Caughey Device Application Development MVP "Batvanio" <batvanio(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:d27babc4-6f5a-4c6e-9059-736981dad3b6(a)m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > Hello > > We are using XML serialization to serialize a large array of objects. > We have two versions of the same application - one for standard PC > (Windows XP Embedded, using the regular .NET framework - currently > 2.0), and a CF version running on Win CE 6.0 (using .NET compact > framework 2.0 as well). > We have observerd a huge difference in performance using XML > serializer between the standard and compact framework. Using excactly > the same hardware ( an ICOP 800 Mhz SoC - based system), the XP > Embedded version took about 50 TIMES faster than the CE version. Same > application, same data, same hardware. > > Does anyone have any suggestion where should we look to improve this? > Any alternative serialization platforms? We still prefer to use XML > rather than binary serialization if possible because of future > interoperability with other software packages.... > > Thanks, > > Ivan
From: Batvanio on 6 Jan 2010 14:00 On Jan 6, 9:54 am, "Ginny Caughey" <ginny.caughey.onl...(a)wasteworks.com> wrote: > Ivan, > > I know you said you prefer XML serialization over binary, but this binary > serializer is a lot faster: > > http://www.codeproject.com/KB/cs/CF_serializer.aspx > > -- > > Ginny Caughey > Device Application Development MVP > > "Batvanio" <batva...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:d27babc4-6f5a-4c6e-9059-736981dad3b6(a)m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > > > > > Hello > > > We are using XML serialization to serialize a large array of objects. > > We have two versions of the same application - one for standard PC > > (Windows XP Embedded, using the regular .NET framework - currently > > 2.0), and a CF version running on Win CE 6.0 (using .NET compact > > framework 2.0 as well). > > We have observerd a huge difference in performance using XML > > serializer between the standard and compact framework. Using excactly > > the same hardware ( an ICOP 800 Mhz SoC - based system), the XP > > Embedded version took about 50 TIMES faster than the CE version. Same > > application, same data, same hardware. > > > Does anyone have any suggestion where should we look to improve this? > > Any alternative serialization platforms? We still prefer to use XML > > rather than binary serialization if possible because of future > > interoperability with other software packages.... > > > Thanks, > > > Ivan- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Thanks, I will look at this. I also noticed that there used to be a XML serializer in the OpenNET CF (at least as of version 1.4), but it has gone in 2.3 (or at least I cannot see it there). Does anyone know what happened to it? Was it considered unncecessary because of the .NET 2.0 built - in serializer? Ivan
|
Pages: 1 Prev: Hosting web service on compact framework 3.5 Next: Wrapper code |