Take the 2-minute tour ×
TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for users of TeX, LaTeX, ConTeXt, and related typesetting systems. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I am programmatically generating PDF's from a template and would like to avoid hitting the hard-drive all the time. Not so much for optimization but because I run parallell threads on all the cores and if the files are not to crash I would have to use some sort of strange naming-system.

I would very much like to run pdflatex or xelatex without the use of files. Make it read the tex file from a string (or stdin) and make it print the data for the pdf to stdout.

In pdflatex there is an -ipc option that might do what I want, but I can't figure out how to use it.

Any help would be very appreciated.

share|improve this question
4  
Inputting from stdin is no problem. Something like cat test.tex | pdflatex works. However it does put the output in texput.pdf. The problem with printing the pdf to stdout is that TeX writes lots of other output files as well, that are often used in a subsequent run of TeX (e.g. to generate the table of contents). –  Caramdir Feb 19 '11 at 20:33
    
I see, thank you very much, this helps me to at least avoid one file. But it does indeed seem hopeless to stream the final output. –  Fredrik Feb 19 '11 at 20:42

2 Answers 2

up vote 11 down vote accepted

A (PDF|Xe)TeX run accesses much more files than only the document source and the PDF created. Apart from the executables (which already include the format) there are document classes, packages, fonts, and the program creates (apart from the output PDF) at least a log file, but most often also an .aux file, sometimes some more files (depending on packages and use) to be used on a second or later run.

So I don't think this is really doable.

My idea would be to put all those files on a special memory-only file system (with an own directory at least for each output to allow better caching).

If all your files use the same template, another option to reduce accessing multiple files would be to create a new format which includes everything common to all files.

share|improve this answer
    
An in-memory file-system might be a decent solution actually. Thank you! –  Fredrik Feb 19 '11 at 20:43
2  
+1 for memory-only file system. Under an Unix OS you can use tmpfs to mount a part of the memory to a location (e.g. /tmp is sometimes mounted like that). Then use mktemp to create a temporary and unique directory for every process. This should be very fast, doesn't touch the HD and should protect for collisions. You can use -output-directory to select this dir or simply move the source template into it. –  Martin Scharrer Feb 19 '11 at 20:54

If we can assume a UNIX-like system running the compilations, what about using mktemp (with or without a RAMdisk-type filesystem)?

#!/bin/sh
TDIR=`mktemp -d --tmpdir=/tmp`
cd /path/to/source
cp file.tex other.sty references.bib ${TDIR}
cd ${TDIR}
pdflatex file.tex
# plus any other commands required for bibtex, 
# to display the pdf file,
# or move it to its final destination
cd ..
rm -r ${TDIR}

On re-reading your post, if this is designed to stream the final PDF through a web server or similar, then the concept can still be the same, but you might have to find mktemp equivalents in Perl, Python, or whatever your server's CGI language is.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.