Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-xml-cocoon-dev-archive@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 67546 invoked by uid 500); 5 Apr 2002 19:48:09 -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 67523 invoked from network); 5 Apr 2002 19:48:08 -0000 Subject: Re: Xalan CVS / Extension Functions / XSLTC To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org Cc: xalan-dev@xml.apache.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.7 March 21, 2001 Message-ID: From: scott_boag@us.ibm.com Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 14:41:03 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on CAMMAIL04/CAM/M/Lotus(Build V5010_03112002 |March 11, 2002) at 04/05/2002 02:41:05 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Peter Royal wrote: > BUT the latest Xalan is *MUCH* faster in interpreted mode (3x for the > stylesheet i was trying to optimize), I suspect that's mainly the redundant expression elimination I checked in. > *BUT* the extension function we use in > xsp.xsl wasn't working correctly, I was just getting empty strings. Is this a Xalan bug? Has it been reported in bugzilla? If it has been, give me the bug number and I'll look into it. -scott --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org