Interesting approach! I'm curious what the impact on performance is. Have
you done any performnce tests comparing a SAX->buffer->PULL parse to a
straight SAX parse?
|---------+---------------------------->
| | "Peter B. West" |
| | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]|
| | om.au> |
| | |
| | 11/26/2002 08:44 |
| | PM |
| | Please respond to|
| | xerces-j-dev |
| | |
|---------+---------------------------->
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|
|
| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
| cc:
|
| Subject: XMLPullParser
|
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
xercesj-devs,
I am a committer with FOP, and I recently posted a description of work I
had done on the front end of FOP Alt-Design. This involved buffering
SAX events, and providing a series of get/expect methods to access them,
effectively reversing the direction of control of parser event
processing. That is, I had used buffering to implement a pull parser.
The posting triggered a lot of discussion, in the course of which my
attention was drawn to the StAX project, where I saw a reference to the
XNI pull parser configuration.
I don't know how much work has been done on pull parsing, but if
developers on this list are interested in what has been done in FOP, I
will forward my original fop-dev post to this list.
Peter
--
Peter B. West [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.powerup.com.au/~pbwest/
"Lord, to whom shall we go?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
