RE: [xsl] Saxon for windows?

Subject: RE: [xsl] Saxon for windows?
From: Pieter Reint Siegers Kort <pieter.siegers@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 10:21:18 -0500
Hi Michael,

HTTP requests work but performance would be hurt. 

It's actually quite simple. I'm using a process class which allows me to
capture StdOut and StdErr, and that runs a process in the background. The
background process can be anything that runs via a command line, and the
best is that it runs completely independent (in Windows this just means on
another thread). While threads compete with each other for CPU time, when
the process runs, the main thread just waits for its output, which means
that the child thread can use all CPU available, thus maximum performance is
guaranteed (under normal circumstances and no other tasks running assumed).

As said, I'm still finishing up things, but I may be opensourcing this
project eventually (if there's enough interest in it of course). For
developers, it will mean instant support for XSLT2, XPath2, and XQuery1 on
the .NET platform native to the processor being used. I think that's the
main benefit, and the other is that support for each processor can be
maintained in the same channels.

Cheers,
Pieter

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Kay [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 3:49 PM
To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [xsl] Saxon for windows?

 
> For .NET on Windows, I'm using Saxon to run natively under .NET to get 
> early support for XPath2, XSLT2 and XQuery1. Basically, I use a 
> background process that runs in it's native environment - for Saxon, 
> that is the Java runtime.
> The process runs in the background and I just capture its output while 
> being able to do other things in my application - it's completely 
> independent.

I'm interested to know more detail about the way you are communicating
between the .NET client application and the Java server application.

I've suggested in the past that people should do this by running the
transformations in a web server and invoking them by means of HTTP requests,
but you seem to be going for a closer coupling than this. Any chance of a
more detailed write-up?

Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/

Current Thread