• To: 'XML Developers List' <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: What should TrAX look like? (Was: Re: Article on JAXP 1.3 "Fast and Easy XML Processing")
• From: Paul R Brown <prb@f...>
• Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:13:57 -0600
• Cc: 'Elliotte Harold' <elharo@m...>,Michael Kay <mike@s...>
• In-reply-to: <E1D1lMG-0002Gf-00@u...>
• References: <E1D1lMG-0002Gf-00@u...>

Michael Kay wrote:
> Only, I think, by forcing the "arbitrary model" to implement some kind 
> of
> standard interface like SAX or DOM - and that would defeat the whole
> purpose, even if it were an improved SAX or an improved DOM.

I agree with Michael.

I also go so far as to say that the discussion is a bit misdirected: 
the apparently poor encapsulation of Source is more of a symptom of the 
fact that TrAX transformers (e.g., XSLT processors but potentially STX 
or XQuery or...?) need to be able to implement their underlying model 
however they so choose.  Source is little more than a marker interface, 
and the thing that makes sense (at least to me) is to have 
off-the-beaten-path Source implementations (e.g., for a pull parser) 
exhibit enough polymorphism (implement SAXSource, DOMSource, etc.) to 
make them useful and reasonably portable for consumption by different 
Transformer implementations.

	-- Paul

• References:
  • RE: What should TrAX look like? (Was: Re: Article on JAXP 1.3 "Fast and Easy XML Processing")
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: What should TrAX look like? (Was: Re: Articleon JAXP 1.3 "Fast and Easy XML Processing")
• Next by Date: RE: What should TrAX look like? (Was: Re: Article on JAXP 1.3 "Fast and Easy XML Processing")
• Previous by thread: Re: What should TrAX look like? (Was: Re: Articleon JAXP 1.3 "Fast and Easy XML Processing")
• Next by thread: Re: What should TrAX look like? (Was: Re: Article on JAXP 1.3 "Fast and Easy XML Processing")
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread