Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 64111 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2004 00:24:15 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 20 Jan 2004 00:24:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 96884 invoked by uid 500); 20 Jan 2004 00:23:52 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-users-archive@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 96672 invoked by uid 500); 20 Jan 2004 00:23:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: users@cocoon.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 96653 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2004 00:23:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.gmx.net) (213.165.64.20) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 20 Jan 2004 00:23:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 19255 invoked by uid 65534); 20 Jan 2004 00:23:58 -0000 Received: from a183069.studnetz.uni-leipzig.de (EHLO gmx.de) (139.18.183.69) by mail.gmx.net (mp005) with SMTP; 20 Jan 2004 01:23:58 +0100 X-Authenticated: #3483660 Message-ID: <400C7567.1060509@gmx.de> Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 01:25:11 +0100 From: Joerg Heinicke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: de-de, de, en-us, en-gb, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: users@cocoon.apache.org Subject: Re: slow pipeline (svg, aggregation) References: <009501c3de93$0d890c30$12c34ac1@PCJH> <19318.1074522036@www44.gmx.net> <00aa01c3de9a$881e8fe0$12c34ac1@PCJH> In-Reply-To: <00aa01c3de9a$881e8fe0$12c34ac1@PCJH> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On 19.01.2004 15:42, Jan Hoskens wrote: > Well, I'm currently using both (started with cinclude, then just curious to > use xinclude, ending up with them both;-), but have not yet noticed a big > difference between them (nor any problems). The only thing to keep in mind, > as far as I know, is that cinclude is cocoon-specific. I do not know if > there are important differences that may affect your performance. > > A cocoon-guru's opinion would be very usefull here! I don't see me as a guru, but a heavy user, but here is my opinion. The differences on implementation level and so on performance or working in general should be marginal - besides that cinclude is cacheable while xinclude is not. Therefore xinclude in 2.1 is standard compliant, in 2.0 it is not. And choosing sitemap aggregation or c/xinclude depeds on static or dynamic number of includes. If you know you always have to aggregate header, footer, navigation and content of a page, use sitemap aggregation. If it depends on the input and the number is dynamic use xinclude. If the process takes to much time or the included stuff is mostly static use the caching provided with cinclude. I can not confirm that sitemap aggregation does not work or is buggy. When something is buggy - and it is at least more often than I would like to see it for such an important feature - than it is the internal processing using cocoon:/. But there is no difference for it between sitemap aggregation, cinclude or xinclude. Joerg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@cocoon.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@cocoon.apache.org