-
From: "Lukas Pietsch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 9:51 AM
Subject: Re: FOP performance on Win98/JRE 1.3.1
> I use FOP with Xalan and I have noticed that the performance is really
> better with the last version
Just a thought... did anybody try FOP with jRockit JVM?
James
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wednesday 12 December 2001 14:42, Cyril Rognon wrote:
> before making any modification to your docbook stylesheet, I suggest you
> simply use some XML parser feature to deactivate the DTD validation and DTD
> loading.
Yes, of course to actually solve the problem (assuming DTD fetching *is* th
relax,
before making any modification to your docbook stylesheet, I suggest you
simply use some XML parser feature to deactivate the DTD validation and DTD
loading. Every major XML parser use these feature that you can configure
(see Xerces for instance).
This way you will not endenger the doc
On Wednesday 12 December 2001 12:24, Lukas Pietsch wrote:
> What's still slow is the preceding docbook-to-.fo conversion.
One thing I've seen is document referring to a DTD using an http:// URL.
This is ok, but usually the parser will go out to the Internet to fetch the
DTD, which can slow dow
Hello,
okay, here's the result:
with the new version of Xalan (2.2.D14), the .fo to .pdf part of the conversion is
really a good deal faster. ("[DEBUG]: Avg render time: 1050ms/page"). What's still
slow is the preceding docbook-to-.fo conversion. And I've also found out that it makes
no big d
Normally, there's no problem...
The Xalan version I used is the 2.2.D11 (the really last is the
2.2.D14).
Solange Desseignes
-Message d'origine-
De : Lukas Pietsch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Envoyé : mercredi 12 décembre 2001 09:52
À : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet : Re: FOP perf
> I use FOP with Xalan and I have noticed that the performance is really
> better with the last version of Xalan (the speed is multiply by 10) !!!
That sounds interesting. FOP 0.20.2 is being distributed with a file called
xalan-2.0.0.jar. Is it technically okay to just go and grab a newer vers
nce on Win98/JRE 1.3.1
Thanks, James, for the detailed comments. Not that I understood everything
of it--I'm afraid I'm rather unexperienced with Java in general. Your
suggestions sound quite convincing, only I don't know how to actually carry
them out. Now maybe what follows is terr
Thanks, James, for the detailed comments. Not that I understood everything of it--I'm
afraid I'm rather unexperienced with Java in general. Your suggestions sound quite
convincing, only I don't know how to actually carry them out. Now maybe what follows
is terribly boring newbie stuff. In that
EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet : Re: FOP performance on Win98/JRE 1.3.1
Hello, James!
You wrote to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Tue, 11 Dec 2001 17:28:25
+:
JR> The performance of FOP needs quite a bit of work. At least thats
the
JR> impression I get from many people round here. However, it
Hello, James!
You wrote to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Tue, 11 Dec 2001 17:28:25 +:
JR> The performance of FOP needs quite a bit of work. At least thats the
JR> impression I get from many people round here. However, its really
JR> new software ( hanve version 0.20 I would imagine ), and I thi
The performance of FOP needs quite a bit of work. At least thats the
impression I get from many people round here. However, its really new
software ( hanve version 0.20 I would imagine ), and I think that that
probably the coders are working on getting the functionality there
before spending
Hello,
(I asked this question on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list first, but was told to better go
here with it.)
I'm new to xsl-fo and related matters and I've just managed to set up FOP (0.20.2) and
make a few test runs. I'm now wondering a bit about its performance. Parsing a single
test xml do
14 matches
Mail list logo
