Hi Shannon, Sorry for the slow response. I'm not actually sure how much of the "faster" depends on the caching. I haven't looked at the code, but offhand, it seems that not supporting XPath may also make the CInclude transformer faster. Does someone else have more details on this (whether CInclude is faster than XInclude for reasons besides caching)?
Harry -----Original Message----- From: Diana Shannon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 10:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [doc] draft FAQ xinclude/cinclude On Friday, June 21, 2002, at 10:25 AM, Lai, Harry wrote: Thanks Harry. > Hi Diana, > > This looks like a great summary to me! Just FYI, I also found an older > post > indicating that CInclude has better performance than XInclude (mentioned > near the bottom of the post). > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-users&m=100339923211176&w=2 > > If this is true, it'd probably also be worth adding to the FAQ. Thanks! This email (dated 2001-10-18) suggests using cinclude -- not xinclude -- when you are including an entire document because it is "faster". Question: Is this performance gain a result of cinclude's caching capability? If so, then it's only "faster" if you use CachingCIncludeTransformer, correct? Diana --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please check that your question has not already been answered in the FAQ before posting. <http://xml.apache.org/cocoon/faq/index.html> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please check that your question has not already been answered in the FAQ before posting. <http://xml.apache.org/cocoon/faq/index.html> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
