From: | Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar(at)frodo(dot)hserus(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: jade X openjade |
Date: | 2004-02-21 08:13:10 |
Message-ID: | 40371316.1040709@frodo.hserus.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs |
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Halley Pacheco de Oliveira wrote:
>
>> In my Athon 1.7 512 MB RAM computer with Debian it
>> takes 2m6s to generate de PostgreSQL 7.4.1 HTML
>> documentation using JADE and 4m7s using OPENJADE
>> (almost 2X). So why use OPENJADE ?
>
>
> I would have to double check, but I think OPENJADE offers better backend
> support.
>
> Personally I think the real question should be, Why *JADE*? We should be
> doing whatever it takes to move to XML/XSLT.
>
> Using Apache xerces I can transform a 1000 page document in less than a
> minute.
I have used xercess-C++ in my current project and I can tell you one thing. It's
object model is broken.
It is a fine API in general but the way it's object model is broken, makes me
hate it.. really..
Given a better choice I wouldn't use it. But I haven't used any other XML
toolkits either. My XML experience is pretty limited..
Shridhar
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2004-02-21 20:42:12 | Re: jade X openjade |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2004-02-20 16:49:50 | Re: jade X openjade |