If the only object to DOM is overhead then I think we have a topic for discussion. As a developer, I have a few XML parsers (Xerces, Sun's parser that is packaged with JAXP, JDOM) installed, and they all support DOM. I think we have to remember that this is a developer tool. Why restrict its simplicity and elegance by throwing out a perfectly acceptable library? I don't understand the objection, especially when you look at Simeon's elegant use of DOM in Antidote.
> W3C DOM will never get into core. Waaaaaay to[sic] much overhead. Is this already a done deal? I don't have voting priveleges, but has this been voted down before? jim > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 8:22 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Anteater... I'm Baaaack... > > > At 08:15 14/12/00 -0500, James Cook wrote: > >I see round-tripping as a major impetus behind an Ant 2.0. I > guess I have to > >see a list of the shortcomings in Ant 1.2! I haven't experienced too many > >from a user's perspective. > > The only real shortcomings from a users perspective I know of are > * you have to use build scripts > * task registration isn't as easy as it could be > * classpath management is often painful > > However there are things that would be nice features - JPan discussed a > while back is one of them as is the idea of "Workspaces" that contain many > ant-projects. > > >I imagine that we should start to collect a list of these > shortcomings so we > >(you) know what needs to be addressed in a new version. I'll start: > > > >1. Ant build scripts should be parsed from a variety of valid > input sources > >into a DOM structure to facilitate Ant integration into GUI editing > >environments. (let the flames begin) :-) > > W3C DOM will never get into core. Waaaaaay to much overhead. However some > form of abstracted DOM would be useful. I proposed a Configuration object > which is a 1-to-1 mapping with Ants idea of object model. AntEater > presumably uses nested hashtables. Another good option is JDOM thou no one > warmed up to that idea ;) > > Cheers, > > Pete > > *-----------------------------------------------------* > | "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, | > | and proving that there is no need to do so - almost | > | everyone gets busy on the proof." | > | - John Kenneth Galbraith | > *-----------------------------------------------------* > >
