On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 10:18 -0500, Yonik Seeley wrote: > On 12/20/06, Thorsten Scherler > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > looking at the source code I wonder whether we have a preferred xml > > parser model? > > > > I mean I can find: > > - pull parsing > > - DOM > > - JDOM (at least in some jira patches) > > IMO, DOM & xpath is good for config. xpath is easy, flexible and less > error prone, and we aren't concerned with performance for reading > config.
Agree, for the config. > > Pull parsing (StAX) for anything performance critical. > > XPP was used at the start, but I think there is a longer term plan to > go with StAX. > http://www.nabble.com/XPP-license-tf1468633.html#a3977357 > ok > > SAX I have not seen yet and neither StAX. I made some very good > > experience with StAX lately it is fast and easy to use. > > > > Do we plan to recommend one technique (at least for the core)? > > Do we have plans to create an interface for a SolrDocumentFactory? This > > way we could have various underlying implementation returning always the > > same: xml. > > > > I ask because I may look into SOLR-20 and SOLR-30 and would like to use > > StAX as underlying parser. > > +1 for StAX as the default XML parser. > For a general Java client though, I'd try and make it flexible enough > to get at the underlying data stream so someone could use another > parser if they so desire (or different syntaxes such as JSON). I will think of something. I reckon an good defined interface will do and I would provide the default implementation based on StAX. Cheers for the feedback. salu2 > > -Yonik
