ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Duncan Davidson <dun...@x180.net>
Subject Re: Anteater... I'm Baaaack...
Date Mon, 18 Dec 2000 05:30:34 GMT
On 12/14/00 8:27 PM, "James Cook" <jimcook@iname.com> 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.

DOM is a "document" object model which is generalized to work with a large
number of abstract and anonymous nodes. Ant works with Projects which have
very specified nodes of Targets, Tasks, Properties, etc. There is no need to
use a generic library when what you are wanting to do is work with very
specific type information. DOM doesn't preserve any of that type
information, except as strings.

> Is this already a done deal? I don't have voting priveleges, but has this
> been voted down before?

I'll continue to -1 it. If we were implementing a browser, DOM +1. If we
were implementing an editor to edit any kind of XML, DOM +1. We're not. We
are out of the scope where DOM is worth using.

-- 
James Duncan Davidson                                        duncan@x180.net
                                                                  !try; do()


Mime
View raw message