Subject: Re: XSLT processor performance From: Sebastian Rahtz <sebastian.rahtz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 13:59:24 +0100 (BST) |
I will add that into my script, thanks, Oliver. the results are predictable, I guess: xt 0m2.863s Saxon 0m2.983s Oracle 6413 Segmentation fault Sablotron Error [code:201] [URI:file:/home/rahtz/Home/xsltest/eratosthenes.xsl] [line:56] [node:attribute 'test'] wrong expression syntax Xalan 0m4.480s 4XSLT 0m24.417s TransforMiiX just does nothing, though I don't understand why. as ever, - XT zaps through like a rocket, but isn't conformant - Saxon is fast and conformant, and accepts anything you throw at it - Xalan is nearly conformant, but a bit slow - Oracle is fast and conformant when it runs, but can go horribly wrong - TransforMiiX is a bit of a loose cannon - Sablotron is promising, but is not mature - 4XSLT can be made to work, but is slow I doubt that anyone would be surprised to read that. If we assume that - any remaining bugs in Xalan will soon be fixed - the Ginger Alliance people are proceeding nicely with Sablotron - Oracle will presumably iron out their oddities soon then even if all else fails we'll have 5 or 6 decent cross-platform interchangeable engines by the anniversary of the XSLT spec. pretty good, if you ask me! Sebastian XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: XSLT processor performance, Oliver Becker | Thread | Re: XSLT processor performance, Paul_Dick |
xsl:include, paramterizable?, Joel Riedesel | Date | Re: XSLT processor performance, Sebastian Rahtz |
Month |