Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

mace-opensaml-users - Re: [OpenSAML] signing performance

Subject: OpenSAML user discussion

List archive

Re: [OpenSAML] signing performance


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Nick Newman <>
  • To:
  • Subject: Re: [OpenSAML] signing performance
  • Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 13:08:15 -0700
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=g2fnUeGdR6Xdo7pM/WKgE15yk2zv9MHJcXch5DLL6pzhV+xcjV8qT0PA1rjgNisRNC oEy8+nJjefZj4LZCah6cgNMnHAkDCIBaMdblQlIdkGxZLuX2Vu3gOKVdu5AqN0T/D8te Pp6wlZggXeRXoi6QFegB5seiB+bOzTayHUwKY=

Scott,

I agree with the performance part of your answer.  I'd be surprised if there's much difference.

I'm not so sure I agree about C++ being the only SP integration strategy that makes sense.  I quite like my JBoss-SAML (even if nobody else does!).  See https://spaces.internet2.edu/display/SHIB2/Contributions

Nick

On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Cantor, Scott E. <> wrote:
> 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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page