I can't argue with that! My previous
vote is hereby recast to +1 for B ...
I didn't know about all these salient
goodies that are coming up. Yum!
:)
- Gulli
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 11. januar 2002 23:21
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Quick Poll: When to switch to Xerces-J 2.x?
>
>
>
> To be clear, option B includes compatibility with Xerces 1.x.
>
> I vote +1 for B. Here are my reasons:
> 1) Joe and I are working on what should be some significant optimizations
> that I think should be in the released product:
> a) Reduction and reuse of RTFs. In the current base, a new DTM is
> created for every RTF. In Joe's new code, a single DTM is used
> for
> most cases, with each RTF being a subtree of that DTM. This
> will
> significantly improve memory usage and help performance in
> many cases, although we don't have good measurements yet.
> b) There is a problem in the current codebase with variables...
> every time you use one it is reexecuted. I have fixed this
> (though not checked it in yet). Along with this fix comes some
> significant simplification if the iterator mechanism, which I
> hope will make things more robust overall.
> c) I am currently implementing some degree of redundant expression
> elimination. In order to be competitive in terms of performance,
> Xalan must do this. We've put it off for far too long.
>
> I know it's been a long time since the last major release. The reason is
> that I feel strongly that we need to up the bar for when we declare a major
> release... making a non-developer release is a declaration of quality, and
> unless we can proudly declare that quality, it does more damage to release
> something that we know has significant flaws. I'm not trying to be a
> perfectionist here... I know we have to be pragmatic. However, I just
> don't
> feel the main trunk quite passes muster yet.
>
> So none of my reasons really have anything to do with Xerces 2.x... I just
> feel we need to wait yet a few weeks longer, which would lead to a
> timeframe
> where we should go ahead and make the jump to Xerces 2.x. If Xerces 2.x is
> delayed, we could go ahead and make a release with Xerces 1.
>
> Just my opinion. I hope we can hear lots of others.
>
> -scott
>
>
>
>
>
