On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 05:03:08 -0700 (PDT), Dimitri wrote:
--- Trevor Nash <tcn at melvaig dot co dot uk> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2002 12:27:53 -0700 (PDT), Dimitri wrote:
As for another myth -- that extension functions are significantly
faster, I recently performed detailed timing in an XSLT application,
in
which ln() was computed approx. 5000 times. Substitution of the FXSL
"ln" template with calls to a Javascript extension function led to
less
than 10% increase of the speed.
Why did you pick Javascript?
The numbers for a Java (not Javascript) extension called from a Java
based XSLT processor are likely to be different.
Allow me to disagree with this. The Javascript extension does nothing
else but call the standard math.log()
And the math object itself will hardly be implemented in Javascript.
Therefore, there's no reason why Javascript's math.log() would perform
slower than its any other language counterpart.
True, except that you are invoking an interpreter in order to
determine that it is math.log() that you need to call - I'm just
guessing that the cost of doing that is significant (scanning,
parsing, symbol lookup...). Are you saying the XSLT/Javascript
combination contrives to do this work just once per run?
Trevor
--
Traditional training & distance learning,
Consultancy by email
Melvaig Software Engineering Limited
voice: +44 (0) 1445 771 271
email: tcn(_at_)melvaig(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list