George Franciscus<br />[email protected]<br /><a href="http://www.nexcel.ca" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.nexcel.ca</a><br /><a href="http://www.manning.com/franciscus" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.manning.com/franciscus</a>
MT
Originally posted by manasa teja:
It was taking plenty of time to produce the PDF to the client, say 8 to 10 minutes. ... I am not sure XSL-Fo performance though...
Author of Test Driven (2007) and Effective Unit Testing (2013) [Blog] [HowToAskQuestionsOnJavaRanch]
George Franciscus<br />[email protected]<br /><a href="http://www.nexcel.ca" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.nexcel.ca</a><br /><a href="http://www.manning.com/franciscus" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.manning.com/franciscus</a>
Originally posted by George Franciscus:
A 500-700 PDF would be a pretty big PDF to return to a web client. This is clearly not the norm for a web app. I think iText will give your the performance you want for a reasonably sized report. Lasse is probably quite correct. I would also be interested in a performance comparison between the two, but let's not forget to factor in the cost to create the XML for the transformation.
MT
. You need to position your data in XML for the transformation. Therefore, there is the overhead to create XML. That was extra work I would rather not have done. If your data is coming from the Model as XML, then there is an argument to using XSL-FO – but IMO not a strong one.
2. You need to create an XSL style sheet. This means that the developer needs XSL skills. More importantly, the maintenance staff needs XSL skills. Since the developers already know Java, why develop a second skill set?
swimming certificate (A & B), shoelaces diploma, and some useless java ones.
A teeny tiny vulgar attempt to get you to buy our stuff
Smokeless wood heat with a rocket mass heater
https://woodheat.net
|