Subject: Re: [xsl] xslt on server-side vs. client-side From: "Robert Koberg" <rob@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:39:44 -0800 |
you're joking, right? this is kind of like going to McDonalds and ordering a Big Mac, large fries WITH A diet coke as opposed to a regular coke. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hunsberger, Peter" <Peter.Hunsberger@xxxxxxxxxx> To: <xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 7:33 AM Subject: RE: [xsl] xslt on server-side vs. client-side > > > Well a server sitting there doing nothing runs cool. A server fully > > loaded runs hot. Doing 1000's of transforms will make it run hot. Hot > > servers use more electricity, stress disks, stress memory and generally > > die sooner. Let the reader pay ;-) > > Well, as someone who has had to provision both servers and manage the design > of their operating environments I won't disagree, except, to point out that > servers are designed to make this kind of thing as efficient as possible. > Similarly, application server software is designed to make the repetition of > tasks as efficient as possible. It would be a fallacy to imagine that > having the workload spread across 1000 machines would save any electricity > (and I don't think anyone is saying or believing this). If your target > environment is the internet, then certainly you can be ecologically > irresponsible and send the work to the users, but if you're running an > Intranet (as we do), then it would be a bad idea on several levels (even if > you have control over the clients)... > > XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list > XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] xslt on server-side vs. c, David Carlisle | Thread | Re: [xsl] xslt on server-side vs. c, cutlass |
[xsl] xsl calling javascript withou, TP | Date | Re: [xsl] Jeni reminds me....., David Carlisle |
Month |