Andreas Hartmann wrote:
Joern Nettingsmeier schrieb:
i think you may be a little biased against xslts...
I used to like it a lot, and I still like it for certain purposes,
but it tends to get in your way when you try to increase the
performance.
i don't really buy that argument. granted, the best way to make an xslt
fast is not to do it (again). but since menus don't change much, there's
a lot of room for optimization. i don't think menu transformations are a
performance bottleneck atm, and cocoon is all about pipeline caching.
dominique has identified some real problems with the sitetree, and i
guess the huge number of input modules per xslt that we currently call
for parameter passing might be another one, but i haven't done any
metrics yet.
but i don't think that xslt per se is our bottleneck. we might be doing
too many transformations, though.
why debate XML? XML by itself means nothing and does nothing. it's
just an agreement on a very simple syntax with tried and true
parsers and a tree paradigm. that does not imply anything. every
procedural or oo language can be represented as a tree (think stack
frames).
IMO XML is good for data, but not for the description of processes.
can't see why. can you give me an example of a domain-specific language
that can't be done in XML?
Our menu is a special case - it has a basic structure (which XML is
fine for), but there's some logic to control the details. We have to
find a way to separate these aspects, maybe by introducing a generic
mechanism to show/hide/enable/disable menu items.
hmm. especially for trivial things such as menu enabling/disabling, xsl
is suited fine. and i'm quite sure the menu2xhtml can be simplified *a
lot*. most of the confusion in there comes from our URL handling problems.
ok, it's tedious to type. show me another nice syntax that comes
with excellent parser implementations for all major programming
environments, a turing-complete transformation language and a
grammar description language that allows for automatic validation.
then let's count how many people work on that compared to how many
people work on xml...
XML has its fields of application. But I wouldn't like to implement
an OS core in an XML-based language :)
gotcha: you wouldn't want to implement an OS core in java either. :-D
--
jörn nettingsmeier
home://germany/45128 essen/lortzingstr. 11/
http://spunk.dnsalias.org
phone://+49/201/491621
Kurt is up in Heaven now.
--
Jörn Nettingsmeier
Kurt is up in heaven now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
