DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36890>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36890 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-10-05 20:21 ------- (In reply to comment #8) > It is perhaps not the fastest or memory efficient mean for very large XML > files, although one could argue that in theory a good optimizing XSL processor > doesn't need buffer/load whole document to do a concatenation when compiling > the stylesheet. > It is however the 'right' way to manipulate XML files, even for concatenation. > Works all the time, whether a DTD or entities are used in the part, or when > encoding differs, whereas straight concatenation with head/tail filters is much > less robust. > BTW, concatenating large XML files is in all cases a bad idea (something Ant's > own JUnit does, BTW). --DD Well, although I agree that XML transformation may be the right tool, XSL transformations is really the wrong thing to use. STX is a much better technology in this case as the language is designed to execute using the SAX model (i.e., streaming the documents as you go). Joost (STX for Java) supports the transformer API, it should not be too dificult to allow the style task to use it. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
