Subject: Re: [xsl] [ANN] Saxon/C - Saxon for the C/C++ and PHP platforms|
From: Michael Kay <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 20:32:32 +0000
On 28 Nov 2013, at 19:48, Adam Retter <adam.retter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > That is great news :-) > > If you are inclined to share them, I would love to hear more about the > process and what your thoughts were when you were evaluating LLVM and > why you went with JET? I'll ask O'Neil to share some of the experiences: he has led this development. We did try more than one approach; rather than a formal evaluation it was more a case of "if X doesn't work let's try Y", until we hit on Jet which did the business. > > So we need to create a libxslt2 bridge now right? > You mean in terms of bridging the API? We haven't really explored what's feasible yet in terms of libxslt2 and libxml cooexistence. At the moment if you've got data in a libxml tree you have to serialize and reparse to get it into Saxon. I don't know if we'll ever be able to do better than that; I suspect the overheads of doing it this way are lower than the overheads of accessing the libXML tree node-by-node from the Java environment, but we'll find out in due course.