There should be no overhead whatsoever in just including the namespace declarations for the various extensions (other than the actual bytes the characters use).
It's only when your stylesheet actually use an extension that the compiler will have to jump the necessary hoops for passing data to and from the extension(s).
>>It's only when your stylesheet actually use an extension that the
compiler will have to jump the necessary hoops for passing data to and
from the extension(s).
XSLT Extensions vs. performance of XSLT Transformation
I think something over: If it is possible to increase the prefromance of XSLT Transformation by removing unnecesery XSLT extenssion?
How you know when we create XSLT file each default XSLT extensions are included automatically but most of them are often unneccesery.
What do tou think about it?
I have just found nice post:
http://forum.umbraco.org/yaf_postst6033_Exslt-Library.aspx
There should be no overhead whatsoever in just including the namespace declarations for the various extensions (other than the actual bytes the characters use).
It's only when your stylesheet actually use an extension that the compiler will have to jump the necessary hoops for passing data to and from the extension(s).
/Chriztian
>>It's only when your stylesheet actually use an extension that the compiler will have to jump the necessary hoops for passing data to and from the extension(s).
I hope it works like this :)
That said, I probably should mention that I usually only include the ones I'm using, because I like things nice and clean :-)
I also like to shorten the prefixes, e.g., I use umb:NiceUrl() instead of umbraco.library:NiceUrl() etc.
/Chriztian
is working on a reply...
This forum is in read-only mode while we transition to the new forum.
You can continue this topic on the new forum by tapping the "Continue discussion" link below.