> With the move of XSLTC alpha to Xalan, and the change of package names,
> etc., it seems that this momentum has gone...
?? Why do you say that? I don't think the target for XSLTC changes, and
small devices certainly should remain important. By bringing XSLTC into
Xalan, all we're trying to do is combine the technology where it makes
sense. The size of a Translet should remain the same. The ability to be
fully conformant with XSLT while at the same time keeping the smaller
package size seems to be the larger issue, not the packaging. I'm very
disturbed to here you say that you think the goals have changed.
Let me try and rearticulate what I think the vision is:
1) Shared core parse, abstract syntax tree, and optimization rewrite.
2) Shared source tree API.
3) Shared multiple choices for source tree implementation: compact, fast
incrementat, DOM wrapper.
4) Shared serialization module.
5) Intepreted runtime for tooling, editing, etc.
6) Compiled runtime for very high performance.
By no means do I see the small guys being abandon. Quite the opposite, I
think. By being able to add a lot of features to the interpreted runtime,
you can keep the compiled runtime leaner, smaller, and faster.
-scott
Jim Molony
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
m> cc: (bcc: Scott Boag/CAM/Lotus)
Subject: XSLTC - why abandon the small
guys?
05/29/2001
03:49 PM
Please
respond to
xalan-dev
Hi -
I'd be interested in any views on using XSL on information
appliances/J2ME/limited configurations. There seemed to be momentum in
maintaining a Palm compatible version of XSLTC up until alpha release 3.
With the move of XSLTC alpha to Xalan, and the change of package names,
etc., it seems that this momentum has gone... (I presume there will only be
the Xalan XSLTC project now?).
I guess I'm asking whether there's some good reason for _not_ doing XSLT on
lightweights that I'm missing. For instance, the ability to serve translets
to small devices that could then cache them would seem to have huge
potential that could outweigh doing billions of XSL transforms on a server,
however fast that could get.
Or is it the view that limited configuration devices have a limited
life-span anyway, and that a full SDK configuration for anything bigger
than
matchbox is not far off?
Be glad of any insights into this.
Thanks,
Jim Molony.
Jim Molony
Wrox Press
Programmer to Programmer(tm)
44 (0) 121 6874192
www.wrox.com
