• 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 00:46:50 -0400
• In-reply-to: <016f01c668ac$2839ad50$6401a8c0@turtle>
• References: <016f01c668ac$2839ad50$6401a8c0@turtle>

On Apr 25, 2006, at 5:06 PM, Michael Kay wrote:

>
>> That's pretty hard-core. ;-)
>> (due to SAX imposed "involuntary
>> inversion-of-control")
>
> Perhaps it's voluntary?

Absolutely voluntary, and for the reason you mentioned. It's very  
common for me to have 3 or 4 'handlers' consuming SAX events, parsing  
the XML into whatever internal data structures I need.

FWIW. I usually write my own lexers/parser by hand, rather than using  
yacc/lex too.... better error handling and cleaner code usually :-)
  

• References:
  • RE: Inversion of control (was: DOM's javascript roots (was Re: Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed?))
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: DOM's javascript roots (was Re: Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed?)
• Next by Date: Re: Inversion of control (was: DOM's javascript roots (was Re: Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed?))
• Previous by thread: Re: Inversion of control (was: DOM's javascript roots (was Re: Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed?))
• Next by thread: Re: DOM's javascript roots (was Re: Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed?)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread