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: parser-next-gen goals, plan, and requirements
Date Tue, 11 Jul 2000 23:02:27 GMT


Scott Boag/CAM/Lotus wrote:
> 
> > are you subsribed? It doesn't look like it!
> 
> Yes I am.  It is a very busy list, and I don't read the mails often, I
> admit.  I did take a look at it initially, and I think I did send you
> comments.
> 
> My statement may have been a bit strong, since I have not taken a good look
> at JDOM lately.  I would rather simply see, in the *core*, one tree model

My understanding of the design, which I think is good, is that the
"core" actually doesn't directly support any tree model.

                API Layer   JDOM         DOM           SAX2

               Core Layer            Java parser code

Of course, there are discussions about the core using SAX2, so that is
up for grabs. I would prefer to be able, for example, to leave out DOM
support and take JDOM support. I think you should be able to do the
converse. And others can take both - with modular design, this is
possible.


> supported, and I personally think it should be the W3C DOM.  If an add on
> module for JDOM is added, I would have no objection to JDOM or any other
> tree model for that matter.

Cool - I agree with James and others though that DOM should also be an
add-on module. I don't want to have to carry around DOM weight. Even
without JDOM, there are times I just want SAX - why should I need the
DOM module for that? An admirable goal, if we can pull it off!

> 
> Sorry if this came out of left field.

No problem ;-)

-Brett

> 
> -scott
> 
> 
>                     Brett McLaughlin
>                     <brett.mclaughlin@l        To:     general@xml.apache.org
>                     utris.com>                 cc:     jason@jdom.org, (bcc: Scott
Boag/CAM/Lotus)
>                                                Subject:     Re: parser-next-gen goals,
plan, and requirements
>                     07/11/2000 06:28 PM
>                     Please respond to
>                     general
> 
> 
> 
> >>    * Factor in tree based producers. We'd like to see DOM and JDOM up
> >>      front.
> >
> >-1 on JDOM for the core.  Just my opinion.  I don't like it, I think it
> >misleads developers about the XML data model, and I would rather not see
> >Apache support it.
> 
> I, as expected, think this is ridiculous. Not because it is true or
> false, but because we sent you a version of JDOM before anyone else ever
> saw it - pre-beta. And we have never gotten one comment from you, or one
> mail on our mailing lists (are you subsribed? It doesn't look like it!),
> saying what these problems are. I think that you could certainly help
> solve or better understand, and educate us, on what you see those
> problems are. This is incredibly close-minded, though - this would be
> like me saying Xalan is not really a good idea, and (as I have not)
> never having gotten involved in the mailing lists, and never having
> posted suggestions to fix it.
> 
> In my mind, it's a -1 without a reason. I would be more than happy to
> see you hop on jdom-interest and let us know what things you see
> problems with. Let us know what version you have used (have you used it?
> Beta 3? 4? CVS? tried the samples?), and help us correct the problems.
> The bottom line, and James can attest to this, is that it has a
> /substantial/ following. Ask James what he got asked over and over at
> JavaOne, often the first questions. There are sessions on it at many of
> the major XML conferences coming up. And if we do things right, it is
> simply a module you can personally ignore.
> 
> I will be honest, though - if JDOM isn't supported at all, I can promise
> that we will pull large numbers of folks away - I have a 2nd edition of
> Java and XML that will sell lots (as the first one promotes JDOM and
> Xerces, I would have hoped to have people at least give credit there for
> my making attempts to encourage interaction), and JDOM has a strong
> following. Why make us choose between another, JDOM-supportable parser,
> and one that is not, esp. if you can use it or not use it as a module?
> 
> Confused...
> 
> -Brett
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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