[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home]
[By Thread]
[By Date]
Re: alternating tags in a list?
Subject: Re: alternating tags in a list? From: Ray Cromwell <ray@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 14:22:45 -0500 (EST) |
> I think that there are two misunderstandings in this part of your post: > > It isn't theorists versus pragmatists. I'm helping a company with terabyte > databases implement a million-hits-per-day XSL delivery system. If that > puts me in the "theorists" camp then who is in the pragmatists one? Are you starting with XML or going from RDBMS -> XML + XSL -> HTML? My question is, why can't XSL have scripting hooks and still be scalable? Why not simply add the restriction that any scripting languages used must not mutate the environment and are restricted to only local variables, and outputing resulting nodes? I don't see any inherent scalability benefit that XSL would confer over stateless scripting languages. Indeed, XSL+XML forces the allocation/processing of an enormous amount live memory objects just to output HTML, whereas a template/embedded scripting system need only store the parse tree/byte code of a script, a temporary symbol table and stack (thrown away after each HTTP request), and a finite amount of pooled resources (database connections, cursors, etc) with output being written to a stream. > My point is that I am not familiar with any cross-platform technology that > allows arbitrary scripting languages to be plugged into any application. > Typically, you must either use Windows' Active Scripting stuff, or you > must plug in each scripting language to your framework individually. > Plugging each language in is probably the same amount of work as > implementing the framework in each language. I implemented a cross-scripting language library in Java myself that lets one evaluate Jacl (TCL), Pnuts, FESI (JavaScript), and JPython. Once I got TCL up and running, getting the others working was about 1 hour each. It's really not much different than SAX, in fact, easier. (as long as you don't need a shared namespace between languages. That is, call subroutines defined in TCL from JavaScript as if they were defined in TCL ala ActiveScripting) > Anyhow, implementing an XSL-like pattern->action pattern is quite logical > and should take the pressure off of XSL to be the be-all and end-all > replacement for ASP, DOM and everything else. I would like something like XSL where the declarative syntax would handle 90% of what I need to do, but let me drop down to a stateless/functional scripting language to handle the exceptional cases. Imagine someone else's XSL formatter lands on my desk one day. A client says, "The gulf war just broke out again, and I need you to do this new CNN-style layout to repurpose some of our documents from the last conflict." To my horror, I find out that I can't modify the existing XSL script to do what I need. So do I have to rewrite the entire thing from scratch in another XSL-like language, or can I simply drop to a scripting language to do whats needed in an emergency, with full knowledge of what I'm doing? I find this whole discussion sort of like the JNI issue in Java. Yes it's ugly. Yes, it makes stuff less portable. Yes, it is harder to maintain, etc. But sometimes you absolutely *need it* Later on, you can rewrite it in a less ugly, more pleasing manner (pure Java), or in XSL's case - a post process step. I hope the XSL WG doesn't do the unthinkable: force everyone to use Microsoft's "extended standard" XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: alternating tags in a list?, Paul Prescod | Thread | Re: alternating tags in a list?, Paul Prescod |
Re: Newbie Needs Help, Paul Prescod | Date | Re: XSL FO competition, G. Ken Holman |
Month |