At 1:43 PM -0700 10/16/03, Jeremy Furtek wrote:
> > Does anyone on the list have experience using an XML parser
>> with C++? If so, can you recommend a decent set of parser tools?
>
>I have been using the Xerces-C++ parser for an application, and it has been
>more than adequate.
>
>http://xml.apache.org/xerces-c/index.html
>
>I have also used expat.
>
>http://www.jclark.com/xml/expat.html
>
>The Xerces-C++ parser seems pretty complete. You can parse documents using
>either the SAX or DOM interfaces. (When using SAX, you provide callback(s)
>for XML element beginning and endings. The DOM interface builds a tree in
>memory of the entire document contents, which you can then "walk.") My
>favorite thing about Xerces-C++ is its support of XML Schema. You can
>provide the parser with an XML Schema file (which is like a DTD, only in XML
>format) and the parser will notify you if the document doesn't conform.
>
>Expat seems to be a more minimalist implementation. It is not a "validating"
>parser. It is written in C, and offers a SAX-style interface.
>
>If pure speed is important to you...
>
>(I am not saying that it should be. I only bring it up because it has been
>mentioned in this group recently.)
>
>you might want to look at the internal character representations used by the
>parsers that you consider. XML files can be encoded with 8 or 16 bit
>characters. The Xerces-C++ parser interface uses 16 bit characters,
>regardless of the encoding of the document. If I remember correctly, expat
>uses 8 bit characters. If all of your XML files are encoded in 8 bits, you
>might be able to realize a small performance gain by using a parser that
>takes advantage of this fact.
>
>Of course, if speed is that important, you could probably select a better
>format than XML.
At 9:30 AM -0500 10/15/03, Riley Rainey wrote:
>Hey Bruce,
>
>Our company uses Xerces-C quite a lot. It does provide for different styles
>of programmatic access and my experience so far has been positive.
>
>At a previous company I worked with Microsoft's XML Parser and DOM (DOM ==
>Document Object Model, for those who didn't know); DOM access worked well in
>most cases, but MSFT requires that you embrace some form of COM programming
>style in your C++ code (e.g. ATL).
>
>Riley
At 10:25 AM -0400 10/15/03, York, Brent W. CIV NAVAIR 4.3.2.3 wrote:
>Bruce,
>
>We've used MSXML and Expat. We use a wrapper library called "SAXinCPP," which is open
>source thing you can find on the Internet. I think the guy who wrote it changed the
>name to something catchier, though, since we started using it. If you want, I can
>have our XML expert send what we have to you...
>
>_Brent
At 9:38 AM -0500 10/15/03, Jon S Berndt wrote:
>Hi, Bruce:
>
>Check out the FlightGear (www.flightgear.org) project for one example ("easyXML") and
>perhaps ask a question on their developer list (or I can do that). For JSBSim, I
>wrote a very limited parser in C++ that I use, but I've been wanting to evolve into
>using a more capable parser - a *real* one. Of course, for my project I need to
>consider open source projects. There are two (as I recall): TinyXML, and eXpat - both
>on the SourceForge web site:
>
>http://tinyxml.sf.net
>http://expat.sf.net (see the C++ wrappers links)
>
>Good luck,
>
>Jon
Thanks, Jon, Brent, Riley & Jeremy. I'd been eyeing Xerces-C++ but was not aware of
the 16-bit (UNICODE, I guess) character representation. I might stick with it anyway
since it seems like the right choice (open source, well-supported, and popular).
I've been using Xerces-J for a Java XML application, and am well satisfied with it; I
wanted to see if maybe I was missing a better solution.
I'll look into the other suggestions (expat, easyXML, tinyXML, and SAXinCPP) but
suspect MSXML is a Windows-only solution?
Thanks again for the rapid response!
--Bruce
