Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 11:29:51AM -0700, Sterin, Ilya wrote: | >In SAX, the parser is has the | >control loop and thus this makes SAX parsers easy to write. In | >DOM the control loop is owned by the library's user. | | That said, it again brings us down to that SAX parsers all (most) | follow the push model, and DOM based follow the pull model. DOM [1] uses a random-access, pull-flow-control interface. SAX [2] uses a sequential-access, push-flow-control interface. XPP [3] uses a sequential-access, pull-flow-control interface. | > I've only just begun playing with random access push | > models... this is more or less events that can be replayed | | For the push model to be replayed, probably means that it | will have to keep a parts in memory, or reparse all over again? Yes. To offer random access an interface will probably elect to keep an in-memory representation. Although a random access interface could be done over a database (see Tamino), etc. | This means that we are back to in memory parsers right, or is | there some other concept behind it? Right. The examples above give you 3 permutations, one could develop an interface which used random-access but push-flow-control. I started to put together an interface for this about a year back... it had a way for events to be "re-played". I stopped after I didn't see an obvious application of the technique. ;) Clark [1] http://www.w3.org/DOM/ [2] http://www.saxproject.org/ [1] http://www.extreme.indiana.edu/soap/xpp/ -- Clark C. Evans Axista, Inc. http://www.axista.com 800.926.5525 XCOLLA Collaborative Project Management Software
|
