Agreed, that is a significant downside. StAX is included in Java 6, but that doesn't help too much given the Java 1.4 req.
-Yonik On 12/15/05, Wolfgang Hoschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > STAX would probably make coding easier, but unfortunately complicates > the packaging side: one must ship at least two additional external > jars (stax interfaces and impl) for it to become usable. Plus, STAX > is quite underspecified (I wrote a STAX parser + serializer impl > lately), so there's room for runtime suprises with different impls. > The primary advantage of SAX is that everything is included in JDK >= > 1.4, and that impls tend to be more mature. SAX bottom line: more > hassle early on, less hassle later. > > Wolfgang. > > On Dec 15, 2005, at 5:47 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote: > > > On 12/15/05, markharw00d <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> At this stage I am more interested in feedback on parser design/ > >> approach > >> > > > > Excellent idea. > > While SAX is fast, I've found callback interfaces more difficult to > > deal with while generating nested object graphs... it normally > > requires one to maintain state in stack(s). > > > > Have you considered a pull-parser like StAX or XPP? They are as fast > > as SAX, and allow you to ask for the next XML event you are interested > > in, eliminating the need to keep track of where you are by other means > > (the place in your own code and normal variables do that). It > > normally turns into much more natural code. > > > > -Yonik --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
