Peter Hunsberger wrote:
On 5/24/06, Craeg Strong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
After all, XHTML is just XML, why shouldn't some of it be cached??
It can be, just be aware that it's cache validity is only as good as
the cache validity of the pipelines that feed it...
Yeap, got it. My mental model is correct I think.
However, as you point out I need to do some testing to see if and when
such caching actually saves any time.
As a silly example, say a transformer produced a chunk of XHTML with
hundreds of lines of embedded CSS and javascript.
If that XHTML can be cached with a non-trivial lifetime, you save time
with the memory allocation alone.
As an aside; check out using Saxon and XSLTC for other performance
improvements and maybe check out using Stylus (or similar) to optimize
your XSLT...
Yes, we are using Stylus profiler right now, as a matter of fact.
Can't use XSLTC, because we make use of EXSLT extensions, in particular
evaluate() which gives us key flexibility.
We are looking into switching to Saxon. However, I heard that recent
releases of Xalan have closed the previously significant performance gap..?
--Craeg
