The default java 1.5 implementation. We haven't measured exactly, but memory wise it helped the server live for at least double the time. Let me collect more data.
Thank you. gnodet wrote: > > How much faster was the JAXP one ? > And using which implementation ? > > On 9/20/07, netflexity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Even though JAXP-based XSLT component was faster and more efficient than >> SAXON for XSLT 1.0, SAXON was not the cause of the memory leak. It was a >> custom ContentEnricher (that supports InOut exchanges) that was not >> issueing done(targetME). So, please be aware of this when creating custom >> service engines or binding components. >> >> >> >> netflexity wrote: >> > >> > My guess would be the use of Templates. >> > >> > >> > netflexity wrote: >> >> >> >> Have anybody experienced memory leaks with XSLT service units? We are >> >> running into out of memory errors during load testing. If comment out >> >> just XSLT conversion, everything performs excellent. >> >> >> > >> > >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://www.nabble.com/SAXON%28XSLT%29-SU-memory-leak-tf4429185s12049.html#a12799678 >> Sent from the ServiceMix - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> > > > -- > Cheers, > Guillaume Nodet > ------------------------ > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/SAXON%28XSLT%29-SU-memory-leak-tf4429185s12049.html#a12801919 Sent from the ServiceMix - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
