Peter B. West wrote:

Why is it easier for developers to use? Is it because the API is less complex or more easily understood? Not really. As you point out, the SAX API is not all that complex. The problem is that the processing model of SUX is completely inverted.
Well, I believe it's more philosophical question or a question of a programming style. push vs pull, imperative languages vs declarative languages etc etc etc ancient holy war. One likes to define rules aka sax handlers, another likes to weave a web from if statements, only to be able to control processing order ;) Both pull and push have pros and contras and it's a pity java still doesn't have a full-fledged pull parsing API (btw, James Clark is working on StAX[1], so it's a matter of time).

You may have come to like writing XSLT that way.
It's the only way to write non-hello-world stylesheets in xslt actually. Don't forget, xlst is a declarative language, so probably analogies with java are just irrelevant, they are different beasts. The question is what is good for the fo tree building stuff? Probably you right, pull is more suitable, but the bad thing is that real input is SAX stream hence we must translate push to pull (funny enough ms considers this task as unfeasible one in XMLReader documentation). Hence next question is the cost of your interim buffer, what do you think could be its peak and average size?

Of course, as I have mentioned recently. And as I also said, the cost of parsing relative to the intensive downstream element processing of FOP is small.
If so, isn't it too early to optimize xml handling altogether? What would we benefit from moving from push to pull? Well, sort of automatic validation is a benefit indeed, but I'm not sure it's enough.

The whole question is context-dependent. If you are engaged in the peephole processing of SUX you may be obliged to use external validation. With top-down processing you have more choice, because your context is travelling with you.
btw, what about unexpected content model objects? Will this fail?
<fo:simple-page-master master-name="default">

Don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying that external validation is wrong, merely that with a pull model, the need is reduced. There may still be a strong case for it, but not as strong as with SUX.
You are right and that btw allows to make external validation optional and still to have reasonable level of validation for free.

Oleg Tkachenko
eXperanto team
Multiconn Technologies, Israel

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to