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

RE: Re: Pipelines : inside or outside the parser ? (was RE: [x

  • To: 'Elena Litani' <elitani@c...>, 'xml-dev' <xml-dev@l...>
  • Subject: RE: Re: Pipelines : inside or outside the parser ? (was RE: Java Technology and XML : API benchmark)
  • From: Nicolas LEHUEN <nicolas.lehuen@u...>
  • Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:20:51 +0100

which parsing api is lightweight
I am not specifically asking to use XNI nor to standardize it. There are
other pipelining APIs such as XPipes that could be used, too.

For the moment my background on pipelining APIs is not deep enough for me to
choose one, so most of the development we made are using a very lightweight
API based on the exchange of DOM documents. Theoritically not very
efficient, but it perfectly fits 80% of our needs for now (the remaining 20%
use SAX pipelining).

What I am suggesting is just that the processing pipeline should not be
embedded within the parser. The parser should not be the master piece of an
XML processing pipeline, it should only be seen as a data injector.

The pipelining API and parsing API should be orthogonal.

The Xerces and XNI model is very nice, but I think that validation should be
treated as a task orthogonal to parsing, and exposed outside of the parser,
not as a subtask of parsing.

Best regards,

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : Elena Litani [mailto:elitani@c...]
>Envoye : mercredi 13 mars 2002 22:50
>A : xml-dev
>Objet :  Re: Pipelines : inside or outside the parser ? (was
>RE:  Java Technology and XML : API benchmark)
>Nicolas LEHUEN wrote:
>> Hi Elena,
>> The "bug", or at least unwanted behaviour, is that even if 
>no validation is
>> performed, the XML Schema is loaded and parsed. I don't know 
>if this has a
>> big impact on performance, yet I think the problem would 
>have been easily
>> dismissed if the parsing and validating layers where clearly 
>If validation/schema is turned off, the latest Xerces release is no
>longer loads the XML Schema. In fact, we remove completely XML Schema
>Validator from the pipeline.
>> What I don't like, though, is that all this composition 
>system takes place
>> "under the hood", with a custom interface (XNI), the whole 
>system being
>> hidden under the main parsing API (JAXP). I think this 
>system should be
>> fully outside of the parser, that is to say I think the 
>parser should not be
>> the main API, but a part of a bigger system.
>Well, where do you propose to put XNI? It is not a standard API like
>Elena Litani / IBM Toronto
>The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
>initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>


Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!

Buy Stylus Studio Now

Download The World's Best XML IDE!

Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!

Don't miss another message! Subscribe to this list today.
First Name
Last Name
Subscribe in XML format
RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3

Stylus Studio has published XML-DEV in RSS and ATOM formats, enabling users to easily subcribe to the list from their preferred news reader application.

Stylus Studio Sponsored Links are added links designed to provide related and additional information to the visitors of this website. they were not included by the author in the initial post. To view the content without the Sponsor Links please click here.

Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member
Stylus Studio® and DataDirect XQuery ™are products from DataDirect Technologies, is a registered trademark of Progress Software Corporation, in the U.S. and other countries. © 2004-2013 All Rights Reserved.