At 08:17 AM 7/25/01 -0500, Weiqi Gao wrote:
>Unfortunately, there is no faster XSL-FO transformers that we can
>substitute FOP with (the eval version of The Other FO processor---I
>don't want to mention names to make you cross either---seems to be even
>slower than FOP at certain inputs).
Feel fr
On 25 Jul 2001 16:44:47 +1000, Darren Munt wrote:
>
> As an interim measure, we decided to produce the FO file separately
> with another parser (I wont tell you which one, it will only make you
> cross)
We'll make wild guesses and get cross anyway. You are using MSXML,
right? :) [No need to an
As an interim measure, we decided to produce the FO file separately with
another parser (I wont tell you which one, it will only make you cross) and
send this straight to FOP. This brought the total rendering time down from
30 seconds to about 17 seconds, which exceeds the saving observed by Weiqi
Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>
>
> Failing that, if we are talking about compiling with javac or Jikes or
> whatever, you are left with compiled bytecode, and for that we have to have
> a JVM. No ifs and buts. So then the avenue of inquiry leads down looking at
> the Invocation API in JNI.
Although
> My confidence level of being able to transition FOP to COM myself is very
> low. It would be really nice if someone would take this on :) Or maybe I'm
> just being lazy.
You said earlier that Cocoon worked for you but you dropped it because
it used an older version of FOP. Did you look at C
>One thing to be careful of is, who is doing the talking about
>compiling Java classes as COM components? Whenever I have run
>across references to doing this, it's been about using MS Visual
>J++ to compile the Java.
Of course, the talking has mostly been done by Microsoft. They want to be
al
At 07:27 PM 7/24/01 +1000, Darren Munt wrote:
>I'm aware that it is possible to compile java classes as COM components, but
>even if I knew where to start on this, I'm not sure it would help much. The
>cocoon approach was looking good for us, but we discovered that the version
>of FOP that is inst
Jeremias,
>That's because you're starting a new VM for every document you're
>creating. First the VM is started (expensive operation), then all
>classes have to be loaded which also takes a long time. Processing in
>Cocoon was faster because all FOP classes were already loaded after the
>first ca
> I've noticed a bit of chat on the list the last few days concerning
> performance. I'm having a few problems in that area and I wondered if anyone
> had any suggestions. I have a 16 page document, consisting of text and
> embedded images, which is presently taking 30 seconds to generate. I've
>
I've noticed a bit of chat on the list the last few days concerning
performance. I'm having a few problems in that area and I wondered if anyone
had any suggestions. I have a 16 page document, consisting of text and
embedded images, which is presently taking 30 seconds to generate. I've
tried Mark
10 matches
Mail list logo
