> But one thing is for sure, XSLTC is way faster than Xalan and, given
> choice, I would use the first for performance-critical applications.
>
> No offense, of course, just the plain facts.

Please, Stefano.  No offense taken, and I was not trying to be defensive.
I agree 100% that XSLTC is an ideal choice for high performance
applications.  If I didn't think so it wouldn't have been brought into the
Xalan project.  We put a lot of our hopes into XSLTC.  I agree 100% with
your conclusions.

But we need to have discussions about incrementality, large document size,
and a few other issues that XSLTC may have without getting into
us-versus-them or whatever.

> Well, this is the same old tune as for all benchmarks. Give me a more
> sofisticated one and I'll be happy to run the tests again.

Sigh.  I'm not criticizing the results of the DataPower/XSLTMark
benchmarks... they tell an important story and I've been running them since
they first appeared.

-scott




                                                                                       
                                                
                      Stefano Mazzocchi                                                
                                                
                      <[EMAIL PROTECTED]        To:       [EMAIL PROTECTED]     
                                                
                      rg>                      cc:       [EMAIL PROTECTED], 
(bcc: Scott Boag/Cambridge/IBM)                     
                                               Subject:  Re: AW: some XSLT benchmarks  
                                                
                      02/20/2002 02:01                                                 
                                                
                      PM                                                               
                                                
                      Please respond to                                                
                                                
                      cocoon-dev                                                       
                                                
                                                                                       
                                                
                                                                                       
                                                




[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Yes, I agree with Berin on this, though I also agree with Jacek that
> there's little reason that it should not scale well.
>
> Another factor is "incremental" output, which Xalan interpretive does a
lot
> of work to do well (and tends to take penalty for), and XSLTC may have a
> much harder time at.  On the other hand, especially given cacheing,
> incrementality may not matter at all.  On the other hand, given Cocoon
> pipelines, it may matter a lot.
>
> (Hopefully, XSLTC can eventually be given incremental capabilities...
> though certainly not at the expense of any performance).
>
> I would like to eventually see much more sophisticated benchmarks than
> XSLTMark, which I think only tells about 20% of the performance story.

Well, this is the same old tune as for all benchmarks. Give me a more
sofisticated one and I'll be happy to run the tests again.

But one thing is for sure, XSLTC is way faster than Xalan and, given
choice, I would use the first for performance-critical applications.

No offense, of course, just the plain facts.

--
Stefano Mazzocchi      One must still have chaos in oneself to be
                          able to give birth to a dancing star.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>                             Friedrich Nietzsche
--------------------------------------------------------------------



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]







---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to