On Friday, June 21, 2002, at 10:25 AM, Lai, Harry wrote:
Thanks Harry. > Hi Diana, > > This looks like a great summary to me! Just FYI, I also found an older > post > indicating that CInclude has better performance than XInclude (mentioned > near the bottom of the post). > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-users&m=100339923211176&w=2 > > If this is true, it'd probably also be worth adding to the FAQ. Thanks! This email (dated 2001-10-18) suggests using cinclude -- not xinclude -- when you are including an entire document because it is "faster". Question: Is this performance gain a result of cinclude's caching capability? If so, then it's only "faster" if you use CachingCIncludeTransformer, correct? Diana --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please check that your question has not already been answered in the FAQ before posting. <http://xml.apache.org/cocoon/faq/index.html> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
