I guess I didn't notice that in spite of what he said he had his reply-to address set to xerces-j-user. :(

Bob

Holliday, Donald B. (LNG-CSP) wrote:
I guess you didn't notice that Andy specifically requested that you reply on
the Xerces-J Dev list (xerces-j-dev).  That's where he wants to carry on a
discussion of this topic.  Not on the user list.

Thanks,

Donald Holliday


-----Original Message----- From: Bob Foster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 11:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Discuss] Pull Parsing, JSR-173, and Xerces


Andy Clark wrote:

There are two camps of thought in JSR-173: one that
wants a single interface iterator model and another
that wants discrete event objects to represent the
various parts of the document. The first is designed
with small footprint in mind while the second is more
OO and allows apps to conveniently save document
content.

To appease both camps, JSR-173 includes both approaches
in the API. This is wrong. Users would be better served
by a single, simpler, more integrated approach.

I favor the event approach with the fundamental change
that the event objects returned are singletons owned
by the parser. If the application wants the information
stored within the object, the app must copy the info out
of the singleton and save it.


After a very cursory reading, I'd be inclined to agree. But I'm a sucker for designed-in performance arguments and I recognize that others are unconvinced by hypothetical performance; you have to whack 'em over the head with a benchmark or two. Are there any realistic prototypes of the JSR proposal vs. your suggestion? I'm sure what you suggest is faster; I'm not sure how much.

One glaring problem does jump out, though. Section 4.5.1, XMLInputFactory, describes yet another non-threadsafe parser configuration. It seems insane that an application can't control its own class loading in a threadsafe way. This one is even worse than the SAX API - _none_ of the ways to configure what gets loaded is threadsafe, nor is there any way for an application to disable any of them. Is it too late to fix this?

Bob Foster
http://www.xmlbuddy.com/


--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]



Reply via email to