And unfortunately, IBM which provided the original basis for Xalan has
decided to do their own XSLT 2.0 processor instead of making Xalan XSLT
2.0 capable. Even though there is code in Apache's source code control
system that has the basis for XSLT 2.0 support.
Dave
Mukul Gandhi wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Andy Chambers
<achambers.h...@googlemail.com> wrote:
As always, it depends on your usage but saxon is pretty well optimized
and worked significantly faster in benchmarks we created for our typical
usage.
Personally speaking, I haven't observed any slowness with Xalan. I
haven't seen any industry standard benchmarks which compare
performance of XSLT engines.
Any XSLT benchmarks that are available, I think are either
proprietary, and cater to a limited complexity of use cases (i.e, are
not fully generic). XSLT stylesheets can be very diverse, so saying
that some processor is faster by measuring the performance for certain
kinds of stylesheets cannot be extrapolated universally.
Being able to use XSLT 2 is a big advantage too.
Yes definitely, there is not doubt about this :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: xalan-dev-unsubscr...@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: xalan-dev-h...@xml.apache.org
