request for comment: adding xslt processing to mapserver

[Frank Warmerdam]

Paul Spencer wrote:
> Yes, the memory requirements seem to be the biggest argument against.  
> The problem when considering implementing xslt is that there is no real 
> solution to streaming xslt transformations so the whole document has to 
> be read into memory somewhere.  Not doing it in mapserver just defers 
> the problem to another process on the same machine or on another 
> machine.  So why not just take the hit in mapserver?

Paul,

I agree that doing it in memory seems unavoidable when doing xslt
transformations.  But I don't want to bring this requirement on
all WFS use - for instance by changing the code to use libxml2 for all
WFS responses.

I like the angle of capturing XML output via the msIO redirection stuff,
if and only if xslt transformation will be applied.  Though the downside
here is that an extra parsing/serializing pass is required.

Best regards,
-- 
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam, warmerdam at pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush    | President OSGeo, http://osgeo.org