On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 16:53:11 +0200, Jirka Kosek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Antti Karanta wrote:
Has anyone done any performance comparisons of how different xsl
engines perform when using docbook xsl (saxon, xalan, xsltproc etc)? Are
there significant differences?
From those three, on more complex transformation Saxon is usually the
fastest. I think that we (as stylesheet developers) should try make
stylesheets working also under Saxon 9 in XSLT 1.0 backward compatibile
mode. This shouldn't be big efort, I think that non-chunking stylesheets
are working this way already. Saxon 9 is more performant then Saxon
6.5.5 and more and more optimiztations are added into it thanks to its
excellent developer.
I tried it out and it is amazingly lot faster - a sample I'm running
went down from 250s (on saxon 655) to 30s (on saxon 9103)!
There seem to be some problems with our custom extensions, I'll have to
figure those out.
The docbook-xsl saxon extensions won't work, though, as they are for
saxon 655. Are there any plans to port the extensions to saxon9?
Currently I was using use.extensions=1 tablecolumns.extension=1
fop1.extensions=1 for fo and use.extensions=1 tablecolumns.extension=1
graphicsize.extension=1 for html. FOP outputs a lot of "WARNING:
table-layout="fixed" and column-width unspecified => falling back to
proportional-column-width(1)"
At a quick glance the tables I looked at seemed all right, though.
::Antti::
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
