Subject: RE: [xsl] Comment about XSLT Complier? From: "Tim Watts" <timw@xxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 10:43:14 +1100 |
If you would like to see some more benchmark tests there are results at http://www.datapower.com/XSLTMark/res_2000_11_20.html Xalan C and Sablotron are the two C++ XSLT Parsers tested there and the others are Java Tim Watts -----Original Message----- From: owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Xu, Xiaocun Sent: Friday, 16 March 2001 12:50 AM To: 'xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx' Subject: RE: [xsl] Comment about XSLT Complier? > > There are benchmarks on the web which show the XSLTC to be a good > > performer. > > Oh good! Could you point me at a URL for these benchmarks? > I've seen figures > for other XSLT processors but not for XSLTC. Check out http://www.tfi-technology.com/xml/xslbench.html, it has the best collection of XSLT processors being benchmarked. From their result, XSLTC has one of the best in performance. But be aware of the warning: The figures for non-conformant engines are likely to be skewed by the fact that they are non-conformant. In this test the non-conformant engines are Sun XSLTC and Sabletron. The other engines are either conformant or near enough that it makes little difference to these tests. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] Comment about XSLT Compli, Michael Kay | Thread | Re: [xsl] Comment about XSLT Compli, Daniel Veillard |
RE: [xsl] What does position() real, Evan Lenz | Date | Re: [xsl] Functional programming in, Colin Muller |
Month |