xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Mason <...@decisionsoft.com>
Subject Re: success stories with xml.apache.org
Date Wed, 01 Mar 2000 09:52:35 GMT
We were using the LT-XML library with our product, but felt that it
wasn't quite the best thing we could have been using. It had a non-SAX
interface (event based, but in the reverse direction -- we would ask the
parser for the next XML-bit, rather than the parser using callbacks) and
roots in SGML.

Upgrading to using Xerces-C/SAX was relatively painless, and indeed our
XML interfacing code halved in size once we were done. Xerces and LT
both seem to have comparable performance, but Xerces seemed to have
better support for standards (Schema support was forthcoming, in

The "free beer" license meant we could use Apache code and yet keep our
code proprietary. I'm not going to delve into the open-source issue here
(since it's ongoing at my company) but having a GPL license would have
meant we were unable to use Xerces.

Our code runs multi-platform (Win32, Linux, Solaris) and in future we'll
be using Xerces' DOM interface, and possibly sections of the Apache
XPath implementation. It's nice to have all this "in one box" as it

Plus I'm on the devel lists and feel like there's a real community
spirit going on, which is great.

Best regards,

p.s. The LT library is extremely good, and I don't mean to bad-mouth it
in any way. We just felt the Apache stuff had more momentum. We started
with the IBM XML4C code about two weeks before it was publically donated
to the Apache project, and feel it's been the right choice.

Mike Mason, Software Engineer
XML Script Development Team                    Office: 44-1865-203192
http://www.xmlscript.org/                      Mobile: 44-7050-288923

View raw message