Webcat XML/XSLT Performance vs. static Html
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2006
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 66246
interpreted = N
texte = Has anyone noticed any performance issues with webcat's XML/XSL features? We are going to be replacing our detail pages with static pages. Our details pages are taking up too many resources due to embedded searches and misc db connections. etc. Therefore we are going to change our methodology and use static pages for our details page. Because of this we are wondering which would be fastest and most dependable, static html files or xml files parsed and displayed by webcat. I would like to use xml, but I don't want to be back where we started, having performance issues due to webcat having to parse an xml file everytime a details page is displayed. However, the xml will be a small file. So is parsing an xml file about the same as doing an [include file], from a resource perspective, or is it more resource intense? Any comments? ------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list
. To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
Has anyone noticed any performance issues with webcat's XML/XSL features? We are going to be replacing our detail pages with static pages. Our details pages are taking up too many resources due to embedded searches and misc db connections. etc. Therefore we are going to change our methodology and use static pages for our details page. Because of this we are wondering which would be fastest and most dependable, static html files or xml files parsed and displayed by webcat. I would like to use xml, but I don't want to be back where we started, having performance issues due to webcat having to parse an xml file everytime a details page is displayed. However, the xml will be a small file. So is parsing an xml file about the same as doing an [include file], from a resource perspective, or is it more resource intense? Any comments? ------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/
Adam O'Connor
DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!
Top Articles:
Talk List
The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...
Related Readings:
Emailer help....! (1997)
Single Link browsing (1997)
[WebDNA] CDATA in XML = blank value (2015)
Confessions of a new user - please be kind it's Friday (2000)
Trouble with formula.db (1997)
Redirect frame targets (1998)
[WebDNA] Timer (2009)
Just Testing (1997)
File not found error message (1998)
WebCatalog 2.0 & WebDNA docs in HTML ... (1997)
Is it possible to pause or wait a process (2000)
WebCatalog 4.0 ? (2000)
RE: [WebDNA] COMMITDATABASE in linux unix 64bits FastCGI version 8.6 (2020)
(1997)
Sorting Round 2 plus (1998)
Size images (2002)
Dumb Question about Docs (1997)
WebDNA dying and trashing my databases - still crashing (2005)
Quitting WebMerchant ? (1997)
Roundup function? (1997)