xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Andy Heninger" <an...@jtcsv.com>
Subject Re: [spinnaker] Announce
Date Tue, 11 Jul 2000 16:59:24 GMT
The C++ and Java code for a parser will clearly not be identical - they
are different languages - but there's much to be gained by keeping the
overall architecture and design the same between the two versions.

The existing xerces-C scanner is a fundamentally different code base from
xerces-j, at least in part because some of those tweaky Java optimizations
seemed to dominate the design of xerces-j.

At some point XML schema will need to be done for C++, and I certainly
hope that we [whoever actually ends up doing the work] will be able to use
the design for schema support from xerces-J pretty much intact.

Knowing that there will be both a Java and a C++ implementation of a given
design does impose some constraints, but they're not too bad - a little
extra thought on how memory management will work, don't rely too heavily
on introspection and the like.  And it doesn't mean that the C++ code
needs to come out looking like the Xerces C++ DOM, which was set up as a
minimum effort port from Java.

But if we don't think about the issues up front, when doing the initial
architecture, we run the risk of having to do a complete redesign for C++,
which would be a big waste of time and effort.

Andy Heninger
IBM XML Technology Group, Cupertino, CA
heninger@us.ibm.com



From: "James Duncan Davidson" <james.davidson@eng.sun.com>


> on 7/10/00 2:05 PM, Joe Polastre at polastre@jtcsv.com wrote:
>
> > I'd also like to see this be coordinated with the xerces-c developers
since
> > the source base for xerces-c is based on the original xerces-j.  it
would be
> > nice to keep the two parsers in sync so that changes to one parser and
> > relatively easy to implement in the other.  plus, i haven't seen
anyone
> > comment on the implications towards the c++ parser by starting a new
branch
> > that could possibly become the new xerces-j.  [us C++ developers are
real
> > people too!]
>
> I disagree. I don't think that keeping sync across C++ and Java is
> reasonable given that two very different coding strategies really should
be
> used to make each appropriate for it's environment.
>
> I think that the feature sets and goals should be similar -- SAX, DOM...
But
> the implementation should be different.
>



Mime
View raw message