xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Arnaud Le Hors <leh...@us.ibm.com>
Subject Re: parser-next-gen goals, plan, and requirements
Date Tue, 11 Jul 2000 23:35:50 GMT
James Duncan Davidson wrote:
> on 7/11/00 3:53 PM, Arnaud Le Hors at lehors@us.ibm.com wrote:
> > I actually simply don't understand the requirement about JDOM. DOM is an
> > API, we need to provide classes that implement the API. This is true for
> > JDOM. It's not an API. It's a set of classes that include a builder that
> > works on SAX. So as long as we support SAX, which definitely is a
> > requirement, we're all set on that front. Let's leave the debate of
> > whether JDOM is a good thing or not outside of this project.
> I Disagree.

I don't understand what you're disagreeing with. All of my statements
are true:

1) DOM is only made of interfaces and can only be used if we provide
classes for it
2) JDOM is a set of classes with a builder that works on top of SAX (and
DOM btw)
3) given that we'll support SAX, JDOM can exist

> JDOM is an important up and coming API that already has
> established a large and rapidly growing groundswell of support and in the
> developer community.

Fine with me!

> You personally don't have to do the work to provide JDOM support

But this is just SAX!!

> -- as long
> as the core architecture is pluggable and modular, then you can work on DOM
> and Brett and co can work on JDOM and everybody wins.

I certainly hope so.
Arnaud  Le Hors - IBM Cupertino, XML Technology Group

View raw message