|
Subject: Re: XSLT processor performance From: Sebastian Rahtz <sebastian.rahtz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 13:59:24 +0100 (BST) |
I will add that into my script, thanks, Oliver.
the results are predictable, I guess:
xt
0m2.863s
Saxon
0m2.983s
Oracle
6413 Segmentation fault
Sablotron
Error [code:201] [URI:file:/home/rahtz/Home/xsltest/eratosthenes.xsl]
[line:56] [node:attribute 'test'] wrong expression syntax
Xalan
0m4.480s
4XSLT
0m24.417s
TransforMiiX just does nothing, though I don't understand why.
as ever,
- XT zaps through like a rocket, but isn't conformant
- Saxon is fast and conformant, and accepts anything you throw at it
- Xalan is nearly conformant, but a bit slow
- Oracle is fast and conformant when it runs, but can go horribly wrong
- TransforMiiX is a bit of a loose cannon
- Sablotron is promising, but is not mature
- 4XSLT can be made to work, but is slow
I doubt that anyone would be surprised to read that. If we assume that
- any remaining bugs in Xalan will soon be fixed
- the Ginger Alliance people are proceeding nicely with Sablotron
- Oracle will presumably iron out their oddities soon
then even if all else fails we'll have 5 or 6 decent cross-platform
interchangeable engines by the anniversary of the XSLT spec. pretty
good, if you ask me!
Sebastian
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
| Current Thread |
|---|
|
| <- Previous | Index | Next -> |
|---|---|---|
| Re: XSLT processor performance, Oliver Becker | Thread | Re: XSLT processor performance, Paul_Dick |
| xsl:include, paramterizable?, Joel Riedesel | Date | Re: XSLT processor performance, Sebastian Rahtz |
| Month |