[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Yes, I agree with Berin on this, though I also agree with Jacek that
> there's little reason that it should not scale well.
>
> Another factor is "incremental" output, which Xalan interpretive does a lot
> of work to do well (and tends to take penalty for), and XSLTC may have a
> much harder time at. On the other hand, especially given cacheing,
> incrementality may not matter at all. On the other hand, given Cocoon
> pipelines, it may matter a lot.
>
> (Hopefully, XSLTC can eventually be given incremental capabilities...
> though certainly not at the expense of any performance).
>
> I would like to eventually see much more sophisticated benchmarks than
> XSLTMark, which I think only tells about 20% of the performance story.
Well, this is the same old tune as for all benchmarks. Give me a more
sofisticated one and I'll be happy to run the tests again.
But one thing is for sure, XSLTC is way faster than Xalan and, given
choice, I would use the first for performance-critical applications.
No offense, of course, just the plain facts.
--
Stefano Mazzocchi One must still have chaos in oneself to be
able to give birth to a dancing star.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Friedrich Nietzsche
--------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
