forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Steven Noels" <stev...@outerthought.org>
Subject RE: Graph data
Date Wed, 20 Feb 2002 22:49:01 GMT
John Morrison wrote:

> I was also looking at this approach, but couldn't find an example
> which explained it sufficiently stupidly for me to follow :(

I have one in my XSLT course, but apparently I needed some extra real-life
experience. Next time while teaching it, my explanation will be lots clearer :-)

> > Seriously:
>
> :)
>
> > I'm reasonably happy with the result, and the resource intensive
> > part can be
> > considered a relevant test of the cache constructs in Cocoon:
> > each daily raw
> > file undergoes a mini-identity-transformation, adding some
> > attributes to each
> > child datum element. This should be an XSLT no-brainer in execution - but
> > there's a lot of them. We can get rid of this step if Sam's
> > script adds the date
> > information per datum.
>
> I'm in two minds - I can see both arguments and I'd normally come down
> on the "don't manually duplicate data".  I think leave it as it is until
> proven otherwise.

Sam, I believe it's up to you to check the performance penalty when doing this
operation in Perl, instead. It's one step less in our pipeline, even though it
will be cached after the first request.

> > Since these are all operations on static
> > documents not
> > using any request parameters, all the processed daily logs should
> > be in the
> > cache afterwards.
>
> true...
>
> > Next, there's the XInclude part doing some XPointer stuff: these
> > are supposedly
> > pretty basic operations, but it means parsing a lot of documents.
> > The XInclude
> > Transformer doesn't implement Cacheable, which is a problem for
> > this case, I
> > presume.
>
> change to CInclude...?

CachingCIncludeTransformer? Yep, I overlooked that one. I'll tackle that on
Friday.

> > We could skip the XInclude part doing an XSLT
> > transformation using
> > document() functions mounted directly on top of our
> > DirectoryGenerator.
>
> don't like.

Neither do I. I won't investigate that further.

> > All-in-all, I would prefer to put the current approach to test and do some
> > benchmarking. If we can get a working basic Cocoon framework put into CVS
> > (Centipede!),
>
> patches, patches, patches :)
>
> > I'd be happy to play around with it until it works
> > (and you guys
> > are sick of my patches :-)
>
> Oh - don't worry - a few more days and I was going to *seriously*
> consider nominating you ;)

And happy to oblige.

</Steven>


Mime
View raw message