I prefer XSLT... I believe it is much more maintainable if done properly...
especially with XSLT and XPath 2.0.
I wound up creating my own translation engine in XSLT 2.0, and it works quite
well. It only took a couple of hours, whereas the Java code was a mess to
trace through...
AJ
On 9 June 2006 3:50 pm, Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
> Peter Hunsberger wrote:
> > On 4/17/06, Adrien Guillon <guila@dainty.ca> wrote:
> >> XSLT will be more extensible for site-specific configurations, and
> >> more maintainable than the existing Java code.
> >
> > I don't see that you'd necessarily have to mark the existing
> > implementation deprecated. Having the two different versions as
> > configurable options might make sense, in particular if there is much
> > of a performance difference. Even if there is not, some people may
> > not feel that XSLT is "more maintainable" than the existing Java
> > code....
>
> I can even give some examples of that...
>
> Sitemap XSLT vs TreeProcessor: Java was considered more maintainable than
> XSLT. XSP vs JXTemplate: Ditto.
>
> Vadim
|