xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brett McLaughlin <brett.mclaugh...@lutris.com>
Subject Re: [spinnaker] Announce
Date Tue, 11 Jul 2000 20:17:03 GMT


Edwin Goei wrote:
> 
> > We are having the design discussion. I like design discussion and
> > encourage other developer in our community besides, Sun employees and IBM
> > employees to participate.
> 
> Yes, I am hoping that others will also participate.  I think the main goal
> in the new design should be code that is easily understandable.  I am
> willing to trade off some performance for clearly written code.  This should
> encourage new developers to participate.

Yes - I have lots of users on the JDOM lists who think Xerces is great,
but are totally scared by the code - unfortunately, I can't blame them.
They would rather spend their time working on JDOM, or something
similar. Of course, the real gain for APIs like SAX, DOM, and JDOM /is/
the parser first, not the API. Optimized APIs on complex parsers can
only go so far.

> 
> The situation right now is that I have looked at the current Xerces code and
> compared it to two other parsers and would prefer to work on the other two
> parsers over Xerces because of its complexity.  Even more, though, I would
> prefer to work on a new parser so I would not have to go figure out the more
> difficult parts of Xerces such as the core part of the scanning code (based
> on the last time I looked at it).  I'm fine with copying parts of the
> current Xerces that are easy to understand and make sense.

I think this is the key - there is nothing wrong with using any and all
we can from Xerces. But if we say this is Xerces 2, or even assume that,
we have to justify /not/ using Xerces code. I think this is the exact
reverse - I think all code, from day one, needs to be justified to /go
into/ the tree - that keeps a lean, mean, clean API (excuse the Mr. T
type string of adjectives).

I know at JDOM we have been looking at going to Project X or a newer,
tiny little parser called Spitfire - not because we are unhappy with
Xerces, but because of (a) its size and (b) its complexity to work
within [the code, not the usability]. I would love to see Spinnaker
prosper (and plan to help it do so), and if it becomes Xerces 2, that's
great! But I think it is foolish to set this as an initial requirement.

-Brett

> 
> -Edwin
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> In case of troubles, e-mail:     webmaster@xml.apache.org
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:          general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org

-- 
Brett McLaughlin, Enhydra Strategist
Lutris Technologies, Inc. 
1200 Pacific Avenue, Suite 300 
Santa Cruz, CA 95060 USA 
http://www.lutris.com
http://www.enhydra.org

Mime
View raw message