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

Re: Inversion of control (was: DOM's javascript roots (was Re:

• To: XML Developers List <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Inversion of control (was: DOM's javascript roots (was Re: Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed?))
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 00:54:44 -0400
• In-reply-to: <20060425213459.66879.qmail@w...>
• References: <20060425213459.66879.qmail@w...>

On Apr 25, 2006, at 5:34 PM, Tatu Saloranta wrote:

> But for other use cases -- for example,
> recursive-descent traversal -- event mode is
> ass-backwards.

When do you really need to do that? I have an extension of  
DefaultHandler that manages a stack of seen elements so I can track  
nesting (calls like getPath() etc). For 99% of the stuff I do, that  
is enough.

> While I have written event dispatchers (just as pretty
> anyone who has had to work on bare SAX API), it is
> monkey work best avoided. Like climbing up the tree
> ass first. Better delegate that monkey work to parser
> implementors.

That depends on your purpose. If you're building a DOM tree, I'd  
agree. If you're just ripping data out of an XML and stuffing it into  
POJOs, I'd disagree. Even simple path-driver data extraction (prices  
form orders etc.) can be handled easily using SAX without the  
overhead of instantiating DOM trees for XPath engines to operate on.  
Recursive-descent is a waste of time for data-binding too IMHO.

> Why? If I am doing data binding, it is the end of the
> line. Same for parsing configuration settings or
> import/exporting data of different type (object
> graphs, relational data).

If you're doing data binding, the value of DOM is questionable.

> While pipelines are important for transformations
> within xml (infoset), their utility ends where XML
> domains starts/ends.

That's true of DOM as well.

• References:
  • RE: Inversion of control (was: DOM's javascript roots (was Re: Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed?))
    • From: Tatu Saloranta <cowtowncoder@y...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Inversion of control (was: DOM's javascript roots (was Re: Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed?))
• Previous by thread: RE: Inversion of control (was: DOM's javascript roots (was Re: Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed?))
• Next by thread: Re: Inversion of control (was: DOM's javascript roots (was Re: Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed?))
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread