• To: "Michael Champion" <michael.champion@h...>
• Subject: Re: Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed? If so, why?
• From: "Oleg A. Paraschenko" <olpa@x...>
• Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2006 06:44:37 +0400
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <BAY107-W3141174C75D52E999860B99D10@p...>
• Organization: xmlhack.ru
• References: <BAY107-W3141174C75D52E999860B99D10@p...>

Hello,

On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 10:36:12 -0800
"Michael Champion" <michael.champion@h...> wrote:

...
>  
> But if this is true, why have cleaner, programming language-friendly
> alternatives failed to displace the dear old DOM as the dominant XML
> programming model after all these years?

Being a mediocre Java coder, I wonder if the alternatives do really
provide any benefits, comparing to the standard DOM with XPath support.
I've looked at the home pages of JDOM, dom4j, XOM, and only XOM has
description how it is different from other competitors. I don't believe
the words "easy to use, intuitive, optimised, flexible, unique, open
source": these words are everywhere.


-- 
Oleg Parashchenko  olpa@ http://xmlhack.ru/  XML news in Russian
http://uucode.com/blog/  Generative Programming, XML, TeX, Scheme

• References:
  • Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed? If so, why?
    • From: "Michael Champion" <michael.champion@h...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Don't you need an XML Virtual Machine ?
• Next by Date: Re: DOM's javascript roots (was Re: Have JDOM/ XOM / etc. failed?)
• Previous by thread: Re: DOM's javascript roots (was Re: Have JDOM/ XOM / etc. failed?)
• Next by thread: RE: Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed? If so, why?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread