Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
From: Adrien Guillon <guila@dainty.ca>
Organization: Dainty Foods (a Division of MRRM Canada Inc.)
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Proposal] i18n Transformer: Support Multiple Languages in One
 Document
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 16:07:17 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.3
References: <200604170830.33518.guila@dainty.ca>
 <cc159a4a0604170934x4679af3cqdb2882f7c4345b06@mail.gmail.com>
 <4489D0F5.50408@reverycodes.com>
In-Reply-To: <4489D0F5.50408@reverycodes.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200606091607.17212.guila@dainty.ca>

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