Stephen Ng wrote: >Personally I much prefer esql to SQLTransformer because I can control >the caching in an xsp. > >Anyway it isn't quite true that you can't do "transformation" in an xsp: >I have SQL which is dynamically generated from an xslt transformer which >I then feed into my esql. I use the resolver to grab the output of the >transformation pipeline. > > Which is what I thought. There doesn't seem to be a use case that can't be acomplished one way or the other.
> > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Per Kreipke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 5:48 PM >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Remove SQLTransformer in 2.1 >> >> >> >> >>>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. >>> >>> >>How can that be true? The transformation point in the >>pipeline is very different than a generator. For example, I >>can order transformations such that the SQL transformer comes >>between other transforms but you couldn't do that with a generator. >> >>Per >> >> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> >> > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
