I prefer XSLT... I believe it is much more maintainable if done properly... especially with XSLT and XPath 2.0.
I wound up creating my own translation engine in XSLT 2.0, and it works quite well. It only took a couple of hours, whereas the Java code was a mess to trace through... AJ On 9 June 2006 3:50 pm, Vadim Gritsenko wrote: > Peter Hunsberger wrote: > > On 4/17/06, Adrien Guillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> XSLT will be more extensible for site-specific configurations, and > >> more maintainable than the existing Java code. > > > > I don't see that you'd necessarily have to mark the existing > > implementation deprecated. Having the two different versions as > > configurable options might make sense, in particular if there is much > > of a performance difference. Even if there is not, some people may > > not feel that XSLT is "more maintainable" than the existing Java > > code.... > > I can even give some examples of that... > > Sitemap XSLT vs TreeProcessor: Java was considered more maintainable than > XSLT. XSP vs JXTemplate: Ditto. > > Vadim
