cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steven Dolg <steven.d...@indoqa.com>
Subject Re: [C3] StAX research reveiled!
Date Sun, 28 Dec 2008 12:50:04 GMT
Sylvain Wallez schrieb:
> <snip/>
>
> Steven Dolg wrote:
>> Basically you're providing a buffer between every pair of components 
>> and fill it as needed.
>
> Yes. Now this buffer will always contain a very limited number of 
> events, corresponding to the result of processing an amount of input 
> data that is convenient to process at once to avoid complex state 
> management (e.g. an <i18:text> tag with all its children). And so most 
> often, this buffer will contain just one event.
>
> Think of it as being just a bridge between the writer view used by a 
> producer and the reader view used by its consumer. These are in my 
> opinion the most convenient views to write StAX components.
>
>> But you need to implement both XMLStreamWriter and XMLStreamReader 
>> and optimize that for any possible thing a transformer might do.
>> In order to buffer all the data from the components you will have to 
>> create some objects as well - I guess you will end up with something 
>> like the XMLEvent and maintaining a list of them in the StaxFIFO.
>> That's why I think an efficient (as in faster than the Event API)  
>> implementation of the StaxFIFO is difficult to make.
>
> It's certainly less trivial than maitaining a list of events, but 
> should be doable quite efficiently by using an int FIFO (to store 
> event types and attribute counts) and a String FIFO (for everything 
> else). I'll try find a couple of hours to prototype this.
>
>> On the other hand I do think that the cursor API is quite a bit 
>> harder to use.
>> As stated in the Javadoc of XMLStreamReader it is the lowest level 
>> for reading XML data - which usually means more logic in the code 
>> using the API and more knowledge in the head of the developer 
>> reading/writing the code is required.
>> So I second Andreas' statement that we will sacrifice simplicity for 
>> (a small amount of ?) performance.
>
> I understand your point, even if I don't totally agree :-) Now it 
> should be mentioned that if even with events, my proposal still 
> stands: just replace XMLStream{Reader|Writer} with 
> XMLEvent{Reader|Writer}.
>
>> The other thing is that - at least the way you suggested - we would 
>> need a special implementation of the Pipeline interface.
>> That is something that compromises the intention behind having a 
>> Pipeline API.
>> Right now we can use the new StAX components and simply put them into 
>> any of the Pipeline implementations we already have.
>> Sacrificing this is completely out of the question IMO.
>
> Actually, I'm wondering if wanting a single API is not wishful 
> thinking and will in the end lead to something that is overly abstract 
> and hence difficult to understand and use, or where underlying 
> implementations will leak in the high-level abstraction.
>
> There is already some impedence mismatch appearing between pull and 
> push in the code:
> - a StAXGenerator has to call initiatePullProcessing() on its 
> consumer, which in turn will have to call it on it's own consumer, etc 
> until we reach the Finisher that will finally start pulling events. 
> This moves a responsibility that belongs to the pipeline down to its 
> components.
Well I don't see the problem with that.
 From the pipeline's point of view those are normal components just like 
all the other.
The pipeline was never intended to "care" about the internals of the 
components - so why bothering that the StAXGenerator calls 
"initiatePullProcessing" on its consumer instead of calling some other 
method like e.g. "startDocument".

> - an AbstractStAXProducer only accepts a StAXConsumer, defeating the 
> idea of a unified pipeline implementation that will accept everything.
The idea was to have pipelines being capable of processing virtually any 
data.
But that is not the same as combining components in an arbitrary way, 
e.g. there is no sense in linking a FileGenerator with an (not yet 
existing) ImageTransformer based on Java's Imaging API.

The components must be "compatible" - that is they must understand the 
data they exchange with each other.
We may however provide some adapters/converters to make certain "types" 
of components compatible, e.g. SAX <--> StAX.

>
> So we should either have several APIs specifically tailored to the 
> underlying push or pull model, or make sure the unified API and its 
> implementations accept any kind of component and set the appropriate 
> conversion bridges between them.
As I tried to state above: that will not be possible for every 
conceivable combination of components.
At least not when thinking beyond XML - which I do.

>
> Sylvain
>


Mime
View raw message