| Author |
Message
|
| kotagiriaashish |
 Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 3:22 am Post subject: XSLT Transform Engine |
 |
|
Disciple
Joined: 06 Aug 2011
Posts: 165
|
Hi everyone,
We have a scenario that includes a lot of xslt transformations [500 - 1000/s] as per my research on the internet "XALAN" wich is developed in C++ is the fastest available. My question.. which one is the more efficient way of doing this??
Should I use XSLTTransform node inbuilt in the broker in the flow or should i make an external call to this engine? Or should i dedicate a separate flow with multiple instances only for transforming xslt? [HTTPIn->TRANSFORM-> HttpREPLY]?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Vitor |
| Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 3:36 am Post subject: Re: XSLT Transform Engine |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| kotagiriaashish wrote: |
| Should I use XSLTTransform node inbuilt in the broker in the flow or should i make an external call to this engine? |
It doesn't matter; AFAIK the Xalan engine is the one WMB uses & all the XSLT node is doing is the call you describe.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kotagiriaashish |
| Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 3:39 am Post subject: Re: XSLT Transform Engine |
|
|
Disciple
Joined: 06 Aug 2011
Posts: 165
|
| Vitor wrote: |
| kotagiriaashish wrote: |
| Should I use XSLTTransform node inbuilt in the broker in the flow or should i make an external call to this engine? |
It doesn't matter; AFAIK the Xalan engine is the one WMB uses & all the XSLT node is doing is the call you describe. |
Great!! Will dedicating a separate flow increase throughput [with multiple instances] as there are no external interactions required? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 3:47 am Post subject: Re: XSLT Transform Engine |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| kotagiriaashish wrote: |
| Will dedicating a separate flow increase throughput [with multiple instances] as there are no external interactions required? |
It depends on your design. I would strongly doubt that the XSLT node is going to be where you find you have a throughput problem and would reserve your optimizing efforts for those.
But here's a question to ponder. How do you invoke these XSLT in a separate flow with no external interactions?
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kotagiriaashish |
| Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 3:52 am Post subject: Re: XSLT Transform Engine |
|
|
Disciple
Joined: 06 Aug 2011
Posts: 165
|
| Vitor wrote: |
| kotagiriaashish wrote: |
| Will dedicating a separate flow increase throughput [with multiple instances] as there are no external interactions required? |
It depends on your design. I would strongly doubt that the XSLT node is going to be where you find you have a throughput problem and would reserve your optimizing efforts for those.
But here's a question to ponder. How do you invoke these XSLT in a separate flow with no external interactions? |
There are a set of XSLTs which correspond to appropriate XML's for every incoming XML we should pickup its assigned XSLT . based on a couple of parameters, we dont have any database or fie or mq interactions to do this. its just stright forward Transformation only.
I suggested DATAPOWER XI50 but that was hilariously discarded  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 3:58 am Post subject: Re: XSLT Transform Engine |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| kotagiriaashish wrote: |
| There are a set of XSLTs which correspond to appropriate XML's for every incoming XML we should pickup its assigned XSLT . based on a couple of parameters, we dont have any database or fie or mq interactions to do this. its just stright forward Transformation only. |
I still think you're looking for trouble in the wrong place.
| kotagiriaashish wrote: |
| I suggested DATAPOWER XI50 but that was hilariously discarded |
I can imagine. I'd have probably snorted myself.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kotagiriaashish |
| Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 5:05 am Post subject: Re: XSLT Transform Engine |
|
|
Disciple
Joined: 06 Aug 2011
Posts: 165
|
| Vitor wrote: |
| kotagiriaashish wrote: |
| I suggested DATAPOWER XI50 but that was hilariously discarded |
I can imagine. I'd have probably snorted myself. |
Why would you do that?? Datapower is built for wirespeed transformations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
Given this specific set of requirements, I would tend to use datapower myself. it's designed and optimized to process XML messages at high speeds, and do so in a manageable and supportable way.
But this clearly isn't the full set of requirements. We have a set of XSLTs that need to be applied to XML documents. But we have no information about where the XML documents exist or how or even if they are transported.
If they exist as flatfiles on a file system, or even worse as gdgs in a zOS system, then there's no way I would ever consider using DataPower. And if the XML documents are generally 'at rest' and not 'in motion' (i.e. on a file system and need to end up in a file system, rather than as messages being passed across a transport), I would look at an ETL tool instead of DataPower or even Broker. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kotagiriaashish |
| Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Disciple
Joined: 06 Aug 2011
Posts: 165
|
| Currently we get XML's through MQ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 5:12 am Post subject: Re: XSLT Transform Engine |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| kotagiriaashish wrote: |
| Vitor wrote: |
| kotagiriaashish wrote: |
| I suggested DATAPOWER XI50 but that was hilariously discarded |
I can imagine. I'd have probably snorted myself. |
Why would you do that?? Datapower is built for wirespeed transformations. |
If I'm an architect and / or budget holder, and I know I've got access to a very expensive IBM WMB installation, and the WMB guy then suggests we add another expensive hardware appliance for a function which on the face of it WMB can do I'm likely to snort.
I'd need a lot more to see why DataPower is a better fit than WMB.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
