Re: xslt on server-side vs. client-side

you're joking, right? this is kind of like going to McDonalds and ordering a
Big Mac, large fries WITH A diet coke as opposed to a regular coke.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Hunsberger, Peter" <Peter.Hunsberger@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 7:33 AM
Subject: RE:  xslt on server-side vs. client-side


>
> > Well a server sitting there doing nothing runs cool. A server fully
> > loaded runs hot. Doing 1000's of transforms will make it run hot. Hot
> > servers use more electricity, stress disks, stress memory and generally
> > die sooner. Let the reader pay ;-)
>
> Well, as someone who has had to provision both servers and manage the
design
> of their operating environments I won't disagree, except, to point out
that
> servers are designed to make this kind of thing as efficient as possible.
> Similarly, application server software is designed to make the repetition
of
> tasks as efficient as possible.  It would be a fallacy to imagine that
> having the workload spread across 1000 machines would save any electricity
> (and I don't think anyone is saying or believing this).  If your target
> environment is the internet, then certainly you can be ecologically
> irresponsible and send the work to the users, but if you're running an
> Intranet (as we do), then it would be a bad idea on several levels (even
if
> you have control over the clients)...
>
>  XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
>


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list