• To: "'Robert Koberg'" <rob@k...>
• Subject: RE: Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed? If so, why?
• From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
• Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 22:06:34 +0100
• Cc: "'xml-dev'" <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <44316E91.7080508@k...>
• Thread-index: AcZXT7XBpX4FHc3XSvqNCHFRVJnf6wAEnp9Q

> I can 
> easily plug in domj4 or JDOM because they provide a *Source for a 
> tranformation. XOM thinks it knows best and just provides a way to 
> tranform - it does not fit...

Saxon will take DOM, JDOM, XOM, and (next release) DOM4J as input.

I agree entirely with your implied sentiment that the OM and the
transformation engine are separate components in the architecture and you
don't want one to constrain your choice of the other.

Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/

• References:
  • Re: Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed? If so, why?
    • From: Robert Koberg <rob@k...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed? If so, why?
• Next by Date: Re: Validation of missing elements in xml:
• Previous by thread: Re: Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed? If so, why?
• Next by thread: Exploiting multi-core CPUs during XML parsing
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread