Re: Saxon for C/PHP/Python/etc

Really? With all the browser plugins relying on Java being there?
-W

On 27/09/2013, Adam Retter <adam.retter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> One of the goals of Tony Grahams talk was to replace libxslt with a
> version that supports XSLT2. I think that forcing a dependency on a
> JVM would deter a lot of users from installing such a libxslt
> replacement.
>
> On 27 September 2013 13:23, Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> What about a JNI interface for the API provided by Saxon? This would
>> avoid dependencies on any additional translator.
>> -W
>>
>> On 27/09/2013, Dr O'Neil Delpratt <oneil@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Dear XSLT community,
>>>
>>> I have recently been looking at the possbilities of making XSLT 2.0/3.0
>>> processor available to the C/C++ world.
>>> At present there seems to be a real shortage or a lack of support for
>>> anything greater than XSLT 1.0 (i.e libxslt, Xalan, etc).
>>>
>>> The benefits are clearly to be seen: having a fullfledged XSLT 2.0 in C
>>> would be great for the PHP/Python/Ruby/... communities, who currently
>>> rely on libxslt.
>>>
>>> So I have been looking at tools that can convert Saxon to native machine
>>> code. Namely LLVM and GCJ.
>>>
>>> I have had much better success using GCJ given that I managed to compile
>>> Saxon-HE to native machine code and actually get it to execute some
>>> stylesheets without any problems.
>>> However is GCJ the right technology to use for the task of converting
>>> Java code to native machine code, since it is somewhat obsolete?
>>>
>>> The LLVM project seems much more active, but I am finding it difficult
>>> to get anything working. I have tried the VMKit which relies on LLVM to
>>> compile some helloworld examples to machine code, but even that seems
>>> cumbersome.
>>>
>>> I would be grateful for feedback from anyone with experience of these
>>> technologies.
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> O'Neil
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Adam Retter
>
> skype: adam.retter
> tweet: adamretter
> http://www.adamretter.org.uk