Note that we started using StAX in recent stuff like Filter module but yes it's a big change for existing code.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 9:53 PM, Paul Libbrecht <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 10/06/15 21:47, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote: >> +1 for removing DOM4J, it's been dead for 10 years. >> But why do we need a non w3c library at all? Why is JDOM better than DOM? >> The main reason is that it is supposedly easier to use for Java >> programmers, but is it that much easier to justify having different >> APIs? The standard DOM is part of the Java language. > Well... my experience in the ActiveMath group with quite several > developers is that JDOM is way easier at representing properly the fine > details of XML in its completeness than DOM. Also, we ran experiment > with the Xerces DOM implementation around 2005 or so, and basically got > the following time factors > - Xerces DOM: 4 > - Xerces SAX with JDOM: 2 > - Saxon SAX with JDOM: 1 > So we kept the latest. Note that Xerces is what's inside Oracle's JVM > (or used to be). > Memory was also considerably better using JDOM. > > The modern way would be to go for StAX but that is a huge programming > change. > > paul > > > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > -- Thomas Mortagne _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
