 | | | Getting / Building / Testing the latest Xalan-J | Getting / Building / Testing the latest Xalan-J 2006-10-28 - By Brian Minchau
Todie,
yes the link pointing to the latest code is wrong on our website (will be
fixed in 2.7.1 release).
You can look at the code with either of these links in your browser:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/xalan/
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/xalan/
The java/trunk and test/trunk subdirectories are the ones with the latest
development code.
The second link, with "viewvc" in it is slightly prettier.
However, to really download the code you need a subversion client and
anonymous access.
You can find pre-built binaries of subversion clients for different
operating systems here:
http://subversion.tigris.org/project_packages.html#binary-packages
The command line with "svn" (the client) to get the latest Xalan-J on
Windows is then
something like this:
svn checkout http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/xalan/java/trunk
D:\temp5\java
which checks out a copy of the code into local directory D:\temp5\java
Similarly for the test harness (if you want that, but don't need it to
download/build the latest Xalan-J)
svn checkout http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/xalan/test/trunk
D:\temp5\test
Those two commands will put a copy of the latest parts in the local
directories "java" and "test",
which are sibling directories with both having parent "D:\temp5". If you
want to test your build with
the test harness provided with Xalan then it is easiest if you keep the
local directory names
as I suggest.
With your paths set up to compile Java code, go into D:\temp5\java (or the
equivalent) and issue these two commands:
build clean
build
When done you will find xalan.jar and serializer.jar in D:\temp5\java\build
If you want to test the jars you built in D:\temp5\java\build, change
directory to D:\temp5\test and issue this command:
build jar
then
build smoketest
Running the "build smoketest" or other targets in the "test" directory
automatically looks for the jars in ..\java\build
and that is why it is easiest to just download the projects into sibling
directories with the given names.
Towards the end of that you will see two "CONGRATULATIONS" messages if all
goes well, and it should.
You'll need to get both xalan.jar and serializer.jar on the appropriate
classpath.
See http://www.apache.org/dev/version-control.html for a little more
information on Apache and subversion.
- Brian
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian Minchau
Apache Xalan PMC
"toadie D"
<toadie643@(protected)
com> To
Brian Minchau/Toronto/IBM@(protected)
10/28/2006 03:52 cc
AM xalan-j-users@(protected)
Subject
Re: xalan 2.5.1 vs. 2.7 performance
question
Brian
Will do. Although I am having problem getting at the source
Linkin from Xalan main page
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/xml-xalan/java/
leads me to a 404
Regards
Toadie
On 10/27/06, Brian Minchau <minchau@(protected)> wrote:
> Toadie,
> In general 2.7.0 should be faster than 2.5.1 because some performance
work
> was done after the 2.5.1 release. Of course it all depends on the
> stylesheet and other factors.
>
> I'm concerned that you see more that 10X degredation for your
> multi-threaded application. We are ramping up for 2.7.1 soon. Can you
build
> Xalan from the latest code in subversion and see how that performs for
you?
> That is going to be very close to the 2.7.1 release.
>
> If the latest development code has the same problem for you, then you
need
> to open a defect in JIRA as soon as possible.
>
> - Brian
>
>
>
>
> "toadie D"
> <toadie643@(protected)
> com> To
> xalan-j-users@(protected)
> 10/27/2006 10:20 cc
> PM
> Subject
> xalan 2.5.1 vs. 2.7 performance
> question
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> We have an XSLT that makes ****extensive**** use of Java Extension
Function
>
> During benchmarking, the XSLT performs at the same speed in single
> thread mode running under 2.5.1 or 2.7.0.
>
> In multi threaded mode, when multiple threads run concurrently by
> creating a Transformer object from a previously created Templates(),
> the performance degrades 10X or more in Xalan 2.7.0 compared to 2.5.1
>
> I was wondering if there were extensive changes in the Extension
> Function implementation in 2.7.0 compared to 2.5.1?
>
> Thanks in advance
> Toadie
>
>
>
|
|
|