Elliotte Harold wrote:
Peter B. West wrote:

So I exaggerated.  But how many better applications can you find me for
StAX than processing XSL-FO?  If StAX has no application here, it has no
application.  Is that what you're saying?

You're asking the question backwards. We should not be asking, "Is XSL-FO the best possible use case for StAX?" We should be asking, "Is StAX the best possible API for XSL-FO?"

One certainly good do write FOP on top StAX, but you can also do it with SAX; and since it's already working with SAX I see no particular reason to throw away the working SAX code and replace it with StAX. If we were starting from scratch, and if the developers were more familiar with StAX than SAX, and if StAX parsers were as mature, proven, and ubiquitous as SAX parsers, then writing FOP on top of StAX might be reasonable. However none of that's the case.

But of course, I'm talking about Folio, which was built on a pull-parsing model before I had ever heard of pull-parsing, because it was the screamingly obvious thing to do. It gives me acute pleasure to see my original design decisions vindicated by the the development of the StAX API, and the current surge of interest. So, all of this, and more, _is_ the case. My invitation stands.

Don't let your feet get wet, Elliotte.

Peter B. West <http://cv.pbw.id.au/>
Folio <http://defoe.sourceforge.net/folio/>

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Reply via email to