Subject: Re: [xsl] XSLTPROC performance From: Colin Paul Adams <colin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:09:45 +0000 |
>>>>> "Abel" == Abel Braaksma <abel.online@xxxxxxxxx> writes: Abel> I think what Colin tries to get at is that on most "real world" Abel> systems, you'll have to start the JVM. Depending on the type Well, on some. Abel> of system you'll have to start it once (a servlet which Abel> stays in memory) or you have to start it each time again (a Abel> workflow management system running every now and then a Abel> couple of XSLT). Abel> It's negligible in the case of the servlet, as it is part of Abel> the overall startup time. But it is not negligible if your Abel> system will have to deal with this startup time. In which Abel> case I agree with Colin that you shouldn't ignore it. Abel> What's fair or not depends on the context. Some people don't Yes. Precisely. That is why I was arguing that for a set of comparison benchmarks you need to give lots of data. And in the case of a Java-implemented processor, that includes the JVM start-up time for workloads where it is necessary (in the case of a web-server application, it might be reasonable to ignore it completely, even in a benchmark, but I wouldn't advocate doing so even then). Abel> like the startup time of Diesel because they only do Hey. We're talking XSLT here, not DSSSL! :-) -- Colin Adams Preston Lancashire
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] XSLTPROC performance, Abel Braaksma | Thread | Re: [xsl] XSLTPROC performance, Andrew Welch |
Re: [xsl] XSLTPROC performance, Andrew Welch | Date | Re: [xsl] Santa has come early, Colin Paul Adams |
Month |