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

Re: Partyin' like it's 1999

• To: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>
• Subject: Re: Partyin' like it's 1999
• From: Robert Koberg <rob@k...>
• Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 17:02:28 -0700
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <417F8B7A.8080209@m...>
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE07206881@h...> <e3a5cb2c04102613362cea4477@m...> <417F8B7A.8080209@m...>
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7 (Macintosh/20040616)

Elliotte Harold wrote:

> Better tools are the obvious solution. Has anyone else noticed that in 
> the top 5 lists almost no one is actually complaining about XML? There 
> are lots of complaints about DOM, so use XOM instead. There are 
> complaints about XSD, so use RELAX NG. Namespaces are indeed a royal 
> pain for tool vendors, but they don't cause nearly as much pain for tool 
> clients.
> 

I just googled looking for a comparison between XOM and dom4j (what i am 
currently using) and only found your comparisoin to JDOM. Looking at the 
XOM information at your site (http://www.cafeconleche.org/XOM/), it 
looks like XOM and dom4j are similar. Is that the case?

I am using less memory after switching from JDOM to dom4j. Would there 
be a similar benefit going from dom4j to XOM? Do you have any critiques 
of dom4j in favor of XOM? (I am open to switching.)

best,
-Rob

• Follow-Ups:
  • XOM vs. dom4j
    • From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>

• References:
  • RE: Partyin' like it's 1999
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>
  • Re: Partyin' like it's 1999
    • From: Michael Champion <michaelc.champion@g...>
  • Re: Partyin' like it's 1999
    • From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Partyin' like it's 1999
• Next by Date: XOM vs. dom4j
• Previous by thread: Re: Partyin' like it's 1999
• Next by thread: XOM vs. dom4j
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread