oh and can we remove the "its deprecated" notation from the documentation.
Time permitting, I'll attempt to resolve why it is so slow by comparison. -Andy Carsten Ziegeler wrote: >Andrew C. Oliver wrote: > > >>Hi All, >> >>Backward compatibility among minor revisions is generally a smart and >>good thing to do. However, there does >>become a point where it grows six legs and starts biting you. >> >>The ESQL generator AFAIK supports everything one could need to do via >>the SQLTransformer and there does not seem >>to be a reason to continue to support both technologies. >> >>IMHO, while the code quality of the ESQL stylesheet is relatively low, >>the quality of the SQLTransformer is lower probably due to code rot and >>negative evolutionary pressures. >> >>I would suppose the SQLTransformer being largely a Cocoon 1.x construct >>is reasonable slow and my own unscientific benchmarking seems to confirm >>this. >> >>I'd like to propose we remove the SQLTransformer from Cocoon 2.1 and >>newer releases, remove all SQLTransformer based samples (or provide esql >>alternatives). >> >> >> >-10 > >The SQLTransformer provides a very good alternative to ESQL, it is in >some use cases more flexible as it is a transformer and not a generator. >And you don't need XSP to use it. > >The SQLTransformer in its current state is not a 1.x construct, it has >been redesigned several times and works afaik absolutely perfect. It >is used in production environments without any problems. > >Carsten > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
