Subject: Re: Which engine? (RE: JavaScript and XSL) From: Paul Tchistopolskii <paul@xxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 20:18:32 -0700 |
----- Original Message ----- From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > I reckon that for companies who cannot afford participating to the > support of the open source products they are relying on, XT is currently > a very bad choice. XT is dead, I think. It has no saxon:evaluate ;-) > The real work is yet to be started and in the meantime I have though > worth publishing some extensions developed for my own usage (running on > the unmodified release of XT) and providing some guidance to XT users > asking questions. > > Or shouldn't I ? If you care about not being blamed, you should not do anything. Do nothing - and nobody will blame you. I think you already know that. ;-) > > I don't think these things are bad ideas, but one person's requirement for > > productivity is another person's toy... if XT is good enough for you > > as-is, these things are great new features. If it's not good enough, these > > things are annoying deviances from more productive development. > > Until now, XT has been good enough for me. For a while it was good enough for me ( for example, because it is Java 1.1, keeps me free of DOM e t.c. XT is elegant ). Then XT become not good enough for me. For many reasons. I think, the real story is that at some point Mike realized that XT is not good enough for him. Why this simple situation has to be reflected in such a strange discussion I don't understand. I don't understand most of the points Mike is making, actually. Or I'm better to think that I don't understand. XT is still ;-) nice, robust and very well embeddable thing. Even I'm not using it any longer ( I'm using SAXON ) this fact does not affect the technical points I was making for a couple of months. I've tried embedding SAXON ( with Trax ) and I've tried embedding XT. The real ( not hypotetical ) situation with embeddability could be somehow illustrated by the latest source code of XSLScript version 0.7 ( based on SAXON ) and XSLScript version 0.5 ( based on XT ). Latest distribution of XSLScript contains both things. Rgds.Paul. From: Mike Brown <mike@xxxxxxxx> > We moved to SAXON recently, in spite of the > slight, but noticeable, performance hit, mainly because of the robustness > of the product --in particular, its support for keys and proper HTML > output when indent="yes", something not even the latest MSXML can > achieve Using the word 'robustness' instead of 'conformance' is nice. I think you've used the wrong word. Mistyping or something. Right? By the way - have you tried to debug buggy stylesheets with, say, complex recursion with XT and SAXON ? Do your stylesheets place some considerable load on extension functions written in Java ? SAXON is good. XT is good. Both are real stuff. <rant> Politics is no good. Politics is not a real stuff. </rant> ;-) XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Which engine? (RE: JavaScript a, Eric van der Vlist | Thread | Re: Which engine? (RE: JavaScript a, Mike Brown |
Re: Conditional variable assignment, Steve Muench | Date | Re: Which engine? (RE: JavaScript a, Paul Tchistopolskii |
Month |