This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
Re: xsltproc (was Re: XSL-List Digest V4 #417)
- From: Kevin Jones <kjjones at ntlworld dot com>
- To: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
- Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 17:26:45 +0000
- Subject: Re: [xsl] xsltproc (was Re: XSL-List Digest V4 #417)
- References: <200206051930.PAA16388@biglist.com> <20020605221316.GH28855@swordfish.havenrock.com>
- Reply-to: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
On Wednesday 05 June 2002 10:13 pm, Matt Gushee wrote:
> Zack Brown asked:
> > Any recommendations for an xslt processor that:
> >
> > * is freely available for Linux
> > * is at least as fast as xsltproc
>
> Unlikely. My understanding is that xsltproc is the fastest XSLT
> processor in existence, with the possible exception of MSXML.
>
> Most popular XSLT processors are written in Java, Python, or Perl:
> Saxon, Xalan, 4XSLT ... xsltproc is faster than them by a wide and
> probably permanent margin.
I don't want to get into a which is faster debate but this is really suspect.
I benchmark processors as part of my job and under no circumstances have I
found this to be true. I have found many of the Java processor are quicker
than libxslt, including jd.xslt, Resin, Saxon and XT. Because of differences
between JVM implementations the margin is different between Windows/Linux. In
fact in a league table of Windows processors libxslt comes in 6th out
of 11.
>
> I guess Sablotron is pretty fast, but I have heard it has standards-
> compliance issues. Haven't really used it myself, so that's all
> second-hand information.
Sablotron is always the slowest in any benchmark because of lack of support
for compiled stylesheets.
Hopefully in the near future I can point you at some real figures, but I don't
have anything I can release today to back this up.
Kev.
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list