Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
I do think your statement is true for enterprise/mission-critical/large-scale projects. On these kinds of projects, individual developers don't get to choose the technologies. The choices are made by software architects (generally not XML specialists) and project managers. As such, their decisions are driven by perceptions of brand quality. Developers using Java can use anything that comes in the JDK they are using. Developers doing .NET or Windows programming can use anything that Microsoft provides. For these tools, the developer can use any XML API that just happens to be bundled with the platfrom they are using. Beyond that, there is only one similarly strong brand, and that is Apache. Developers can usually make a case to use the latest Xerces or Xalan because the Apache name is so strong. Xerces supports DOM, not JDOM nor XDOM, and that is what it comes down to. An interesting question would be that of what is happening in small shops where individual developers may have more choice. Who knows, it could be that they may have more important fads to chase (like dumping Java or .NET for Python or Ruby) than worrying about whether to use DOM or not. Cheers, Tony. --- Michael Champion <michael.champion@h...> wrote: > In some internal discussions of the XLinq > http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframework/future/linq/ > project, I got a very interesting bit of devil's > advocacy that went something like this: "People > complain about the DOM, but they don't embrace > alternatives. For all the work that people have > done to provide alternatives such as JDOM, dom4j, > XOM, etc. in the Java world, the typical users and > the major Java players still use DOM, warts and > all." I'm not at all convinced this is true, but I > don't have any information at my fingertips to > dispute it. Would anyone care to present facts on > one side or the other?
|
