Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-xml-cocoon-dev-archive@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 68909 invoked by uid 500); 10 Mar 2001 03:32:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 68657 invoked from network); 10 Mar 2001 03:32:51 -0000 From: Scott_Boag@lotus.com Subject: Re: C2 and Saxon To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.1 July 16, 1999 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 22:18:24 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on CAMMAIL04/CAM/M/Lotus(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 03/09/2001 10:28:13 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N "Matthew Langham" wrote: > The difference in speed seems to make Saxon an iteresting alternative - if > only the XPathAPI was there. Our measurements with XalanJ2 seem to place the latest SAXON and XalanJ2 neck-to-neck in terms of performance. SAXON is a little faster in some cases and XalanJ2 a bit faster in other cases, but there were no significant differences in terms of transform time, and only one case of significant difference in terms of stylesheet processing time. This was using the JAXP 1.1 (TrAX) APIs. This is pretty good considering the incremental processing model of XalanJ2... especially important for the chained transforms that Cocoon does. I don't mean to be defensive... I think it is a very good thing to enable SAXON for Cocoon. -scott --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org