[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: DOM vs JDOM

• From: Tom Bradford <bradford@d...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 17:16:12 -0700

SNedunuri@p... wrote:
> In their article Easy Java/XML integration with JDOM, Part 1 in JavaWorld,
> http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-05-2000/jw-0518-jdom.htm
> Hunter and McLaughlin say: "DOM represents a document tree fully held in
> memory."

This is a statement to promote their project and generate FUD for the
DOM.  While I like JDOM and have my complaints about the DOM, there's
not much difference between JDOM and most DOM implementations other than
the fact that JDOM isn't interface and factory-based.

> Is there anything inherent in the DOM interface that requires the document
> to be held in memory? Why does the DOM interface require that a document be
> fully held any more than the JDOM interface does?

There is nothing that requires a DOM tree to be held in memory other
than the DOM implementation itself.  Lazy DOMs allow you to
incrementally retrieve and traverse DOM trees, I believe the Xerces
project was working on such a beast, and the dbXML DOM is partially a
lazy DOM.

-- Tom

• References:
  • DOM vs JDOM
    • From: SNedunuri@p...

• Prev by Date: DOM vs JDOM
• Next by Date: Happy ending
• Previous by thread: DOM vs JDOM
• Next by thread: Re: DOM vs JDOM
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread