Re: [xsl] Using Saxon 2.0 with FOP, XEP, Antenna House

[Michael Kay <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Certainly in the case of FOP, it's possible to pass the data between Saxon and
FOP at the level of SAX events. I used to package this in the product, but
abandoned it because it wasn't possible to do the integration in a way that
worked across FOP releases.

I suspect that any slowness you experience is more to do with the Java VM
startup cost than with the extra cost of XML parsing and serialization; but
that's conjecture.

Michael Kay
Saxonica


On 15 Oct 2013, at 14:31, Jesper Tverskov wrote:

> Hi list
>
> FOP, XEP and Antenna House come out of the box with XSLT 1.0
> processors, Xalan, Saxon, MSXML.
>
> I would like to use a Saxon XSLT 2.0 processor, but have a problem.
> Let me use Antenna House as example.
>
> If I make a bat file, and first do the XML to FO transformation using
> a Saxon XSLT 2.0 processor, output FO to a file, and then in the same
> bat file use AH to transform the FO file to pdf, it works but it is
> much, much, much slower, a crawl compared to running.
>
> When using MSXML and AH, I have a feeling that AH takes over the FO
> file from XSLT from memory.
>
> Now, instead of specifying the two processors in the bat file, in AH
> you can just specify AH in the bat file, and use a configuration file
> to setup Saxon. The XSLT line in the config file could look like this,
> based on AH documentation :
>
> <xslt-settings msxml="false" command="SaxonHE9.5N/bin/Transform
> -o:&#34;%3&#34; &#34;%1&#34; &#34;%2&#34;"/>
>
> It works. But the result is so slow that it is my guess that the
> config file is simply doing what is similar to two separate
> transformations in the bat file.
>
> Conclusion: It looks to me that Antenna House at the command line is
> optimized to use MSXML and that any other XSLT processor will be much,
> much, much slower.
>
> Are the above true for AH or have I overlooked something? And what
> about FOP and XEP? Are they also optimized to work much faster with
> the build in XSLT processor, at least at the command line?
>
> Regards
> Jesper Tverskov