Andy Black wrote: > On 11/3/2008 10:26 AM, Hussein Shafie wrote: >> Andy Black wrote: >> >>> On 11/3/2008 9:20 AM, Hussein Shafie wrote: >>> >> I would replace: >> >> id(@foo)/@wiz >> >> by something like: >> >> //b...@id = current()/@foo]/@wiz >> >> That is, get rid of id() by replacing it by a specific XPath. >> >> (Just saying that off the top of my head. Didn't test it. However if it >> works, you should have less performance problems.) >> > > Thanks. > > I just tried this and, from what I can tell, it is the same speed or > maybe even a bit slower. It does work, however. >
Sorry for what seems to be a bad idea. > Might it be faster using a custom Java[tm] style sheet extension to do > the same kind of thing I'm trying to use id() for? Or will that also > run into the same problem? > A style sheet extension which does the same thing as id() will be as slow as id(). (You seem to have proven it with //b...@id = current()/@foo]/@wiz.) In order to be fast, you need to cache the elements of interest and therefore, to remove them from the cache when they are modified, destroyed, etc. Not a simple task.
