• 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 18:35:57 -0400
• In-reply-to: <20060426220159.99460.qmail@w...>
• References: <20060426220159.99460.qmail@w...>

On Apr 26, 2006, at 6:01 PM, Tatu Saloranta wrote:
> Yes, but only if you actually enjoy having to
> implement your stack handlers, dispatchers etc.
> Pull-parsing removes requirement for such glue code;
> keeping track of context can be done by normal method
> calls, hence recursive-descent (but without a need for
> an in-memory tree model like DOM).

Ahh. I see from your last 2 posts that you're really a proponent of  
pull-parsing. I can't fault you for that because for many things, it  
*is* more natural. I've built up enough of a SAX base that I don't  
feel compelled to move to it though.

• 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?))
• Next by Date: SVG Support in IE7
• 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