xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Octav Chipara <ochip...@cse.unl.edu>
Subject Re: parser-next-gen goals, plan, and requirements
Date Wed, 12 Jul 2000 16:41:29 GMT


> 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. 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.
> You personally don't have to do the work to provide JDOM support -- 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.
> Wouldn't this be sign of a development community getting along. :)
> .duncan

OK ... It is true that some of use want JDOM, but I would propose to try
to built a new tree structure. IMHO, neither JDOM nor DOM would are the
best possible solutions. I would like something that would have small
footprint and that would be easily mapped on structures that could be
defined in some programming language!

What do you think?


View raw message