Re: XSL/T Engine Comparisons

Subject: Re: XSL/T Engine Comparisons
From: "Sebastian Rahtz" <sebastian.rahtz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 23:31:51 +0100 (BST)
Steve Muench writes:
 > | I can blow up Xalan and Oracle fairly easily;
 > >From private email I know what you mean by "blow up"
 > here, but others might not. It does *not* mean "crash"
 > but rather "make consume a lot of memory, thus causing
 > my Java VM to page, thus sending it into a fit because
 > Java VM's and paging to disk don't go well in the
 > same sentence". 

Yes. I apologize unreservedly. When I wrote my mail, I had it in my
head that I had made Oracle crash because of a feature missing, but I
was not remembering aright. I agree, Oracle implements the spec, to
the best of my knowledge. I personally am not using oraxsl because

 - it does not (yet, publicly) implement an extension for multiple
    output files
 - it currently wants more memory than I have

 > Using your testcase and others we've worked for on
 > our memory usage so I'll hopefully have good news to report
 > shortly on this front.

thats great.

I much appreciate the trouble you have taken to look at my perhaps
unreasonable test cases, and again, apologies for maligning the software!


PS but I dont think we can let Xalan off the conformance hook. Though I
confess that I seldom try it, because xerces tells me the TEI Lite DTD 
is invalid.

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread