A quick code search on openhub and github: * library | openhub | github * org.w3c.dom | 180k [1] | 1.1m [2] * jdom 1 | 35k [3] | 112k [4] * stax | 25k [5] | 127k [6] * jdom 2 | 2k [7] | | 20k [8]
It seems that jdom2 is not that popular, at least not in the projects tracked by openhub or hosted on github. [1] http://code.openhub.net/search?s=%22import%20org.w3c.dom%22 [2] https://github.com/search?q="import+org.w3c.dom"&type=Code [3] http://code.openhub.net/search?s=%22import%20org.jdom%22 [4] https://github.com/search?q=%22import+org.jdom.%22&type=Code [5] http://code.openhub.net/search?s=%22import%20javax.xml.stream%22 [6] https://github.com/search?q=%22import+javax.xml.stream%22&type=Code [7] http://code.openhub.net/search?s=%22import%20org.jdom2%22 [8] https://github.com/search?q=%22import+org.jdom2%22&type=Code On 06/10/2015 03:53 PM, Paul Libbrecht 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 > > > -- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
