On Thursday 18 August 2005 20:52, Leon Rosenberg wrote: > > I'm glad to see there is some support for XSLT. Makes me feel > > like I haven't been barking up the wrong tree for the last > > few years. Sending the XML to the client is a nice idea in > > principal but has so many problems that IMHO it's not worth > > it. Transformation server side is cheap enough now that I > > don't worry about doing it. > > Aehm... Sorry, but this isn't quite true. Server side transformation is the > most expensive part and the biggest problem of > XSLT (and client transformation doesn't work properly, as you mentioned). > > We tested relatively complex html pages, rendered with xslt against jsp. > The simpliest transformation (3K page) lasted about 50 milliseconds, a JSP > needed max 5 ms on the same machine. Complex pages (a lot of iterations and > custom/struts tags) needed about 50-70 > ms, same page with XSLT took half a second. > > And then, with XSLT DOM transformation you need TONS of RAM. I don't think > you can serve max 200-250 users per machine with XSLT, whether with JSP you > can easily go into 600-700 hundreds on a cheap intel machine (3.4Ghz > prescott with 1024 cache, 2 gig ram for example). >
I agree it is a lot more expensive than JSP but you get a lot of flexibility and it is very easy to create a "transformation farm". (Un)Fortunately I don't have to deal with those sorts of loads at the moment. Graham > Regards > Leon > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
