2009/8/13 Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com>om>:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 7:19 PM,
hk_kng<hk.kng(a)web.de> wrote:
> Helder Geovane kindly asked me to post this here,
after I published a comment at
>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:SVG_image_support#Batik_server_revisited
> This started out when a colleague posted a proposal on strategy wiki of throwing
> some foundation money at the active development of rsvg. I wanted to counter
> this with an old question: why not use Batik instead? The decision for rsvg in
> 2006 was based on the asumption that a Java application was a bad idea due to
> overhead. At this time, a user proposed a http Server app based on Simple
> (
http://www.simplframework.org). He published a demonstration version
> (
http://batikd.sourceforge.net/), but noone reacted, and his work stopped. Now I
> have taken a look at his approach, and I find the results are not that bad, for
> an early development stage: in most cases, the batikd rendering times are two or
> three times those of rsvg, and in some specialized cases (extensive use of
> filters), batikd is even faster.
I published some batch-batik performance numbers back
when this was
discussed. It wasn't too appealing.
I did some a year and a half ago, they should really be redone:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/SVG_benchmarks
I still hold the position that if we were to use
anything other than
rsvg it should be inkscape, since at least then users could have a
hope of some degree of bug-compatibility WYSIWYG. ;) (and inkscapes
performance is attractive... and at least all the crash bugs I
reported were fixed :) )
Yuh. My tests it came out very slow, and not a good idea unless you're
running Windows (since it comes in a standalone package) - but others
have suggested that could be starting it afresh every time - if it
could run from the command line with a single instance, it could be a
bit faster, I don't know.
- d.