Hi Neil, I agree with you. In my opinion it should have different levels of using. Grammar caching should be supported on the highest level of the API.
For example something like this: SAXFactory.newGrammarPool(); GrammarPool.addSchema(Input1); GrammarPool.addSchema(Input2); GrammarPool.newSAXParser(); Unfortunately I have no time for a detailed look into XNI. Best regards Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] am 09.01.2002 18:07:05 Bitte antworten an [EMAIL PROTECTED] An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kopie: Thema: Re: [design]: grammar caching Hi Thomas, Perhaps you're right about JAXP, but even your example presupposes the existence of TRAX. So to my mind we need to develop as good a grammar caching API as possible, then work to ensure that anything JAXP comes up with is compatible. Cheers, Neil Neil Graham XML Parser Development IBM Toronto Lab Phone: 905-413-3519, T/L 969-3519 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 01/09/2002 02:58:14 AM Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject: Re: [design]: grammar caching Hi, in my opinion also grammar caching is very important. As I have reported I get a performance improvement of factor 10 by using the grammar caching of the DOM Level 3 implementation. But in my opinion these features should be provided in the highest level of used APIs. So it should go into JAXP. For XSLT people have started with the TRAX API which then have been taken by the JAXP people. In my opinion TRAX fits the needs of advanced application development with XSLT very well. Best regards Thomas Mäsing --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
