(I'd swear I replied to this already, but not in the thread so... rinse, repeat)
I do realize we didn't add it by mistake. We purposefully added it. I just think that design choice can be viewed, with 20/20 hindsight, as incorrect at this point. On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 3:35 PM Thompson, Dave < dthomp...@owlcyberdefense.com> wrote: > The -I sax option wasn't a mistake. It was added for the SAX > parse/unparsed update Lola worked back in 2020 and 2021. > > Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Adams, Joshua <jad...@owlcyberdefense.com> > Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 3:26 PM > To: dev@daffodil.apache.org; mbecke...@apache.org > Subject: Re: CLI -I sax feature - remove? > > Funnily enough I was just having a conversation with Dave Thompson about > this very thing. When I mentioned that we will have a "-I exi" option for > the command line tool, which from Daffodil's perspective will be just like > using SAX, he asked if he will need to specify the "-I sax" option, or if > that option will just go away. > > I am in full agreement of removing the "-I sax" option as, like you said, > SAX usage is inherently an API and I can't think of an easy way to pass a > SAX ContentHandler over the command line. Adding an EXI option to the > Daffodil CLI tool can kill 2 birds with one stone in that we will be adding > support for EXI as well as demonstrating how to pass in your own SAX > ContentHandler. > > Josh > ________________________________ > From: Mike Beckerle <mbecke...@apache.org> > Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 3:19 PM > To: dev@daffodil.apache.org <dev@daffodil.apache.org> > Subject: CLI -I sax feature - remove? > > In the CLI, there is the -I option to specify infoset-type. > > One of the choices is 'sax'. > > This is a mistake I think. This is really "XML text by way of calling the > SAX API". It's effectively a testing mode for us. > > SAX usage is inherently an API. > > I believe we should remove this feature from the CLI, because it creates a > lot of confusion. It requires test-mode things to be in the main-libraries > where the CLI can find them. > > If we require SAX to be used as it is intended, from applications calling > Daffodil via APIs, then all this "xml text to/from SAX-event" code all ends > up in src/test where it belongs. > > Thoughts? >
