[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: [ANN] smallx XML Infoset and Pipeline Released (OpenSource
Alex Milowski wrote: > In smallx you stream info items--not SAX. As such, when you receive > a start tag you get the name, attributes, and in-scope namespaces. > In SAX, those are separate callbacks and implementing against that > is much harder. > > From an implementation perspective, I do not want to write > components based on SAX. It is too cumbersome. I know what you mean ;-) The OPS XPL engine provides infosets either as raw SAX, but also as DOM or dom4j documents. It could be interesting to look at also providing a more Infoset-friendly API, like you appear to have in smallx, although there is no standard for such AFAIK. Note that the XPL spec is designed purely in terms of XML Infoset. Then implementations are free to translate that into any API they like. > The XPL specification for pipelines is very different the smallx > pipeline specification. XPL and SXPipe share a common "heritage" or > "architecture" of the Sun Microsystems note on XML Pipelines. That > is, the conceptual mode of the pipeline language as a sequence of > orchestrated processors is the same. Correct. > smallx XML pipelines follow the idea the pipeline is a specification > of a transformation and the steps are like XSLT extension elements. > Each step in the pipeline is really an extension element that has > its own syntax. That way you can embed specialized syntax or other > steps without external files. You can also embed steps that have no > specification other than the element syntax you are using. [examples cut] I can see that the approach taken by smallx is quite different from XPL's. > Further, if you want to write a custom step, you can declare the > extension namespace and embed your own syntax with your own schema > for that element. In this way, the pipeline language is extensible. > > Of course, someone has to write the supporting code, but I've tried > to make that easy by the APIs for the infoset and bootstrapping > mechanism to get the syntax into the compiler. The implementation > has a registry which is an XML document. You just have to modify that > to get your step into the language. The extension system of XPL is, in a way, similar, except of course that it is done on an "XML processor" or "XML component" basis. What's similar is that XPL assumes the existence of a registry mapping names to XML processors. Practically, the OPS implementation provides an XML configuration file which is used to associate names and Java classes. That configuration file is made available to the XPL engine through a registry class. Is smallx similar in any way with Apache Jelly? Thanks for the precisions so far. -Erik
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|