Mailing-List: contact forrest-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: forrest-dev@xml.apache.org
Message-ID: <3E80293B.2090001@apache.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:02:35 +0100
From: Stefano Mazzocchi <stefano@apache.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US;
 rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: forrest-dev@xml.apache.org
Subject: Re: Interesting performance figures
References: <20030325042138.GH1409@expresso.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <20030325042138.GH1409@expresso.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Jeff Turner wrote:
> Render using 'forrest':   11 mins
> Rendered with 'wget' against a Tomcat instance:   3 mins 12s
> Rendered with 2 wget's in parallel:   2 mins 27 secs
> 
> The wget's were fed a list of files to render, whereas the CLI had to
> do ?cocoon-view=links requests, but still, quite a big difference.

This makes me wonder.

How would you guys feel if cocoon decided to move all the cocoon CLI 
code (cocoon bean, environment and all that) into forrest?

with the move of forrestizing the docs, cocoon has clearly delegated all 
the CLI responsibility to forrest. This will just make it stronger and 
will allow you people to choose what's best for forrest which knows what 
to do about static generation much more than cocoon which is a community 
with a much wider spectrum.

note that there are no circular dependencies because cocoon docs 
generation won't depend on cocoon compilation.

Thoughts?

Stefano.