Subject: Re: [xsl] Re: How to output open/close tags independently? From: Niko Matsakis <niko@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 13:53:11 -0500 |
For the "good" (XSLT-correct) approach: total time ~129ms For the "bad" approach: ~139ms
The "correct" version: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> <xsl:stylesheet xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform" version="1.0">
<xsl:output method="xml"/> <xsl:template match="/"> <xsl:for-each select="top/x[position() mod 3 = 1]"> <xsl:text>
</xsl:text> <w> <xsl:copy-of select=".|following-sibling::x[position() < 3]"/> </w> </xsl:for-each> </xsl:template>
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> <xsl:stylesheet xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform" version="1.0">
Niko Matsakis DataPower Technology
Not that I'm picking on you specifically Wendell, but your reply was the most blatantly representative of a class of responses of a particularly XSL purist/snobbish nature which I find extremely objectionable. There was a reply from a Mitch Amiano which actually supplied a suggested approach which "appeared" entirely reasonable, so tried it out. I've included the core XSL for both approaches below: the "bad" code which had the 'disable-output-escaping' clause and the "good" code which generated the Page element directly. Following are my performance numbers on a test input file which had 22,004 Row elements and was 13,425,501 bytes large (the time output is from the Unix time(1) command):
For the "good" (XSLT-correct) approach: real 2:41:32.6 user 2:31:57.0 sys 1.9
For the "bad" (d-o-e) approach: real 1:38.4 user 1:31.8 sys 1.0
The "good" approach took hours; the "bad" approach took minutes. For those that will care, the test environment was a Sun Solaris platform using the interim release of the Xalan C++ 1.4 XSLT processor.
I'm just curious, do those of you with this hard-line "purist" attitude
actually use XSL to do real work or are you mostly academics and tool
developers/vendors? I understand staying true to a paradigm up to a
point, but sooner or later "the rubber has to hit the road".
Regards, Ed Knoll
p.s. This is not all of the XSL, just the differences.
---- "Good" XSL ------------------------------
<xsl:variable name='PageFirstRows' select='/gnsl:Results/gnsl:Table/gnsl:Row[ (position() mod $RowsPerPage) = 1]' />
<xsl:template match="gnsl:Table"> <xsl:copy> <xsl:copy-of select="@*" /> <xsl:apply-templates select="gnsl:Columns" />
<xsl:choose> <xsl:when test="gnsl:Row"> <xsl:apply-templates select='$PageFirstRows' /> </xsl:when> <xsl:otherwise> <xsl:element name='Page' /> </xsl:otherwise> </xsl:choose> </xsl:copy> </xsl:template>
<xsl:template match="gnsl:Row"> <xsl:element name="Page"> <xsl:for-each select='.|following-sibling::gnsl:Row[$RowsPerPage > position()]'> <xsl:call-template name='CopyAll' /> </xsl:for-each> </xsl:element>
---- "Bad" XSL ------------------------------
<xsl:template match="gnsl:Table"> <xsl:copy> <xsl:copy-of select="@*" /> <xsl:apply-templates select="gnsl:Columns" /> <xsl:choose> <xsl:when test="gnsl:Row"> <xsl:apply-templates select="gnsl:Row" /> </xsl:when> <xsl:otherwise> <xsl:value-of select="$LineBreak" /> <xsl:text disable-output-escaping="yes"><Page/></xsl:text> <xsl:value-of select="$LineBreak" /> </xsl:otherwise> </xsl:choose> </xsl:copy> </xsl:template>
<xsl:template match="gnsl:Row"> <xsl:if test="(position() mod $RowsPerPage) = 1"> <xsl:if test="position() != 1"> <xsl:value-of select="$LineBreak" /> <xsl:text disable-output-escaping="yes"></Page></xsl:text> <xsl:value-of select="$LineBreak" /> </xsl:if> <xsl:value-of select="$LineBreak" /> <xsl:text disable-output-escaping="yes"><Page></xsl:text> <xsl:value-of select="$LineBreak" /> </xsl:if>
<xsl:call-template name="CopyAll" />
<xsl:if test="position() = last()"> <xsl:value-of select="$LineBreak" /> <xsl:text disable-output-escaping="yes"></Page></xsl:text> <xsl:value-of select="$LineBreak" /> </xsl:if> </xsl:template>
Hey Mitch,
The horribleness of disable-output-escaping is not (to my mind) really an issue of the well-formedness constraint either in the stylesheet or in the output -- that's something of a red herring (though it is a risk and a sign of the deeper problem). Rather, it's the violation of XSLT's processing model, in which the transformation of the node tree and the post-transformation serialization are clearly distinguished and kept separate by design. *Any* solution that works by writing markup to output using d-o-e creates a dependency on the serialization step. While this may be acceptable in certain circumstances (e.g. writing SGML entity references to output that are not otherwise provided for, when you *know* you're going to write a file), it's horrible at other times, if only because the designer has created this dependency unwittingly, and thus doesn't understand why the transform breaks in a conformant architecture, like Mozilla or transformation chains in Cocoon, where no file is getting serialized.
The relevance of grouping is only that the "write markup" approach is usually resorted to by newer XSLT programmers who don't know how else to do grouping, and who fall back on their Perl or Javascript experience (or just sheer ingenuity) to suppose that writing markup is the best or only solution to the problem (it is neither).
I doubt that any experienced XSLTer would have a problem with either of the solutions you offered (or Dimitre's, or Tom's), since none of them introduce the dependency on serialization that is the problem with d-o-e-based techniques for "outputting open/close tags independently". There the distinctions are much more of coding style and performance; but none of them use a technique that is prone to break the minute you move your stylesheet into a different environment.
Cheers,
Wendell
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] Re: How to output open/cl, Michael Kay | Thread | Re: [xsl] Re: How to output open/cl, Mitch Amiano |
Re: [xsl] passing a node-set variab, Kevin Jones | Date | [xsl] processing alternating siblin, Wright, Steve |
Month |