Lambert, Mark: > If I pluck a large document with Jpluck the > resulting file is 9,561,208 bytes, but if I > pluck it in the Desktop (with matching settings > as far as I can tell) it is 12,348,756 bytes in > addition to taking over 4 times as long. Are others > seeing similar results with large documents with images?
Space: JPluck typically applies a stylesheet to get rid of the boilerplate. The python parser (used by the desktop) does not. There is a filter option, but it isn't yet as powerful as the XSL transforms in JPluck. These transforms may even reduce the number of pages fetched, so that you're effectively excluding more with JPluck. Time: The python code is not threaded. Even on a slow modem, most browsers are. The lack of threading may make it play nicer with other programs running at the same time, but it does mean long waits for the occasional hiccough at the other end. (And there may be more total fetches, based on the transforms.) Images: I suspect the images code in python is less efficient than the imaging code in Java. I haven't tested this, in part because I don't care enough to fix it -- but I believe the Java code uses libraries that someone has optimized. There are other imaging choices with python, and some may be faster. (There is even a way to use the Java Imaging Libraries, but then you need to use jython, which may slow things down for other reasons.) -jJ _______________________________________________ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
