Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Apr 25, 2006, at 5:34 PM, Tatu Saloranta wrote: > But for other use cases -- for example, > recursive-descent traversal -- event mode is > ass-backwards. When do you really need to do that? I have an extension of DefaultHandler that manages a stack of seen elements so I can track nesting (calls like getPath() etc). For 99% of the stuff I do, that is enough. > While I have written event dispatchers (just as pretty > anyone who has had to work on bare SAX API), it is > monkey work best avoided. Like climbing up the tree > ass first. Better delegate that monkey work to parser > implementors. That depends on your purpose. If you're building a DOM tree, I'd agree. If you're just ripping data out of an XML and stuffing it into POJOs, I'd disagree. Even simple path-driver data extraction (prices form orders etc.) can be handled easily using SAX without the overhead of instantiating DOM trees for XPath engines to operate on. Recursive-descent is a waste of time for data-binding too IMHO. > Why? If I am doing data binding, it is the end of the > line. Same for parsing configuration settings or > import/exporting data of different type (object > graphs, relational data). If you're doing data binding, the value of DOM is questionable. > While pipelines are important for transformations > within xml (infoset), their utility ends where XML > domains starts/ends. That's true of DOM as well.
|
