I could easily woodstox only when we aren't validating, anyway. On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 7:03 PM, Christian Vest Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Woodstox claim to be validating on their front page. > > From the news section it looks like they got W3C Schema validation in > 3.9.0 23-Nov-2007. > > Just FYI. > > On 3/19/08, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > The other issue with using woodstox is that I think you lose validation > > entirely. > > > > Dan > > > > > > > > On Wednesday 19 March 2008, Dan Diephouse wrote: > > > Benson Margulies wrote: > > > > At this point, the startup performance of the bus is entirely > > > > tangled up in Xerces. I'm having a hard time believing that > building > > > > a DOM from StaX is going to beat Xerces, but if someone else thinks > > > > so, I guess I'm game. > > > > > > > > Sadly, there are no Apache-compatible XML databases I can see out > > > > there, so my idea of 'compiling' all the XML files to DOM trees in > > > > some sort of persistent store seems impossible. > > > > > > Woodstox provides a significantly faster SAX implementation than > > > Xerces. But the question is - is the startup time in xerces because > of > > > validation or because of parsing? I'm guess the former. > > > > > > Its easy to test the Woodstox parser: > > > > > > java -Dorg.xml.sax.driver=com.ctc.wstx.sax.WstxSAXParser .... > > > > > > Dan > > > > > > > > -- > > > > J. Daniel Kulp > > Principal Engineer, IONA > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://www.dankulp.com/blog > > > > > -- > Venlig hilsen / Kind regards, > Christian Vest Hansen. >
