Java远端调用方案响应速度比较

偶然在网上发现了一篇关于XML和二进ava Remote 实现方案针对响应速度的比较文章，认为不错，贴出来Share一下。

文中比较了10种Java 远端调用的解决方案的响应时间，得到了以下几个结论:

1. The binary protocols (RMI, ORMI, HttpInvoker and Hessian) are always faster than the XML-based protocols (Burlap and the Apache XML-RPC variants) — except for ORMI with HTTP tunneling enabled.  (二进制协议总是比XML协议响应速度快，除了使用HTTP隧道的ORMI，[应该是不带HTTP隧道的ORMI吧？])
2. Performance is pretty even amongst the binary protocols — except for Hessian, which performs well only when compared to the XML-based protocols, and ORMI with HTTP tunneling enabled, which performs on a par with the XML-RPC variants. (二进制协议的反应比较平均，除了Hessian以及基于HTTP隧道的ORMI）
3. Burlap has much better performance than the XML-RPC variants. (Burlap在基于XML的协议中反应性能最好)
4. Native RMI and Hessian 2 have the best performance until the remote method invocations start returning larger lists, at which point vanilla ORMI takes a slight lead. （本地RMI以及Hessian2具有最好的反应性能，在处理大尺寸的集合时，ORMI的反应时间也很短）
5. Changing Apache XML-RPC’s transport factory does not seem to have a very large effect on performance. （更换XML-RPC的传输方式对响应速度提升没有太大贡献）
6. It’s amazing how fast standard ORMI is, compared to ORMI with HTTP tunneling enabled. （和基于http隧道的ORMI相比，ORMI出奇的快）
7. Hessian 2 bears watching! （Hessian 2 值得期待！）

 以下是网站地址及性能比较图：

http://daniel.gredler.net/2008/01/07/java-remoting-protocol-benchmarks/