ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <>
Subject RE: Anteater... I'm Baaaack...
Date Fri, 15 Dec 2000 08:34:27 GMT
At 11:27  14/12/00 -0500, James Cook wrote:
>If the only object to DOM is overhead then I think we have a topic for
>discussion. As a developer, I have a few XML parsers (Xerces, Sun's parser
>that is packaged with JAXP, JDOM) installed, and they all support DOM. I
>think we have to remember that this is a developer tool. Why restrict its
>simplicity and elegance by throwing out a perfectly acceptable library? I
>don't understand the objection, especially when you look at Simeon's elegant
>use of DOM in Antidote.

Okay how about W3C DOM is
* clumsy and unwield to use
* complex and hard to maintain
* built for extreme cross platform capability - something Ant doesn't need
* oh did I say it was ugly to use ;)
* ugly 

Have you looked at ? If not have a look at it. That is a
response to the utter failing of DOM in java. I am still using an old
version but it is much much much easier to use.

>> W3C DOM will never get into core. Waaaaaay to[sic] much overhead.
>Is this already a done deal? I don't have voting priveleges, but has this
>been voted down before?

Nope not voted on but if it were it would be -1'ed - So really no point to
vote on it ;)



| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof."                   |
|              - John Kenneth Galbraith               |

View raw message