Re: XML::Saxon::XSLT2

Liam R E Quin schrieb am 24.08.2010 um 11:46 (-0400):

> Very occasionally you will run across a combination of XML and XSLT
> for which libxml will be faster than Saxon. More often Saxon will be
> faster, sometimes by orders of magnitude. So if your transformation
> takes longer to start than the JVM startup, it may be worth it.

LibXML is fast, and usually faster for simple transforms. Saxon enjoys
continuous optimization and scales best.

> The issue here is not C vs. Java, nor is it really XSLT 1 vs 2, it's
> about current software with an active developer using relatively
> advanced optimization techniques vs deadware.

That's not fair; LibXML is not deadware. Let's say it's mature and
stable, and maintained.

> (I just tried to do some comparisons, but I tend to use regular
> expressions in my XSLT these days, and xsltproc/libxml doesn't have
> them

You can use extension functions with your XSLT and do the regex stuff in
Perl. So you lose portability? Yes. But when on 2.0 you're not portable
either because even if you are in theory there's only one processor in
practice. :-) Unless you consider going Gestalt or Altova.

Yes, XSLT 2.0 is much nicer, but for many cases you need a general
purpose programming environment anyway, so you have to use Java or
C# or Perl or PHP in addition to 2.0, and I would happily do that and
not care about portability.

For how often do you port your apps? Pick an environment and enjoy it.

-- 
Michael Ludwig
_______________________________________________
Perl-XML mailing list
[email protected]
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs