mace-opensaml-users - RE: [OpenSAML] signing performance
Subject: OpenSAML user discussion
List archive
- From: "Cantor, Scott E." <>
- To: "" <>
- Subject: RE: [OpenSAML] signing performance
- Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 19:00:04 +0000
- Accept-language: en-US
> is there likely to be much difference in the performance of SAML assertion
> signing between the Java and C++ opensaml implementations? Are there
> any benchmark figures available?
I don't think anybody's compared them. Modern Java optimizations have
certainly shrunk the gap enormously from the early days.
While I enjoy not having to worry much about low level performance in my SP,
I don't use C++ because of that, I use it because there is no other web
server integration strategy that makes any sense.
-- Scott
- [OpenSAML] signing performance, Chris Card, 01/06/2011
- RE: [OpenSAML] signing performance, Cantor, Scott E., 01/06/2011
- Re: [OpenSAML] signing performance, Nick Newman, 01/06/2011
- RE: [OpenSAML] signing performance, Cantor, Scott E., 01/06/2011
- RE: [OpenSAML] signing performance, Chris Card, 01/06/2011
- RE: [OpenSAML] signing performance, Cantor, Scott E., 01/06/2011
- RE: [OpenSAML] signing performance, Chris Card, 01/06/2011
- Re: [OpenSAML] signing performance, Cantor, Scott E., 01/06/2011
- RE: [OpenSAML] signing performance, Chris Card, 01/07/2011
- Re: [OpenSAML] signing performance, Chad La Joie, 01/07/2011
- [OpenSAML] certificate management, Chris Card, 01/07/2011
- Re: [OpenSAML] certificate management, Chad La Joie, 01/07/2011
- RE: [OpenSAML] signing performance, Chris Card, 01/07/2011
- Re: [OpenSAML] signing performance, Cantor, Scott E., 01/06/2011
- RE: [OpenSAML] signing performance, Chris Card, 01/06/2011
- RE: [OpenSAML] signing performance, Cantor, Scott E., 01/06/2011
- Re: [OpenSAML] signing performance, Nick Newman, 01/06/2011
- RE: [OpenSAML] signing performance, Cantor, Scott E., 01/06/2011
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.