Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Great work Peter!
It makes a lot of sense to use higher-level than SAX events, and thanks for
explaining this so clearly.
If you allow me a suggestion regarding the structure of the code: maybe using
some table-driven stuff instead of the many if statements in
Rhett Aultman wrote:
But, a
pull model can be grafted onto a push model by implementing what amounts to
a specialized buffer of the pushed data that accepts pull queries...no?
Yes, another alternative is additional thread with the same duties. See
Aleksander Slominski's parer:
Responses below.
-Original Message-
From: Peter B. West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 2:25 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Alt-Design status: XML handling
This is not a problem for at least the maintenance version of the code.
All of the processing
-Original Message-
From: Peter B. West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: November 26, 2002 3:25 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Alt-Design status: XML handling
Rhett,
To comment on only two aspects of your posting.
Rhett Aultman wrote:
-Original Message-
From
Responses below.
-Original Message-
From: Arved Sandstrom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tue 11/26/2002 6:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: RE: Alt-Design status: XML handling
Actually, it really
Oleg Tkachenko wrote:
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.
Peter B. West wrote:
I don't believe is is only a matter of style. I think the detrimental
effects of push for general programming are glaringly obvious.
It's just event-driven processing, how it could be detrimental?
I haven't read the documentation, but it may be that they are referring
Completely generalized and probably worthless response below. ;)
-Original Message-
From: Oleg Tkachenko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 4:01 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Alt-Design status: XML handling
Peter B. West wrote:
I don't believe
Oleg Tkachenko wrote:
Peter B. West wrote:
I don't believe is is only a matter of style. I think the detrimental
effects of push for general programming are glaringly obvious.
It's just event-driven processing, how it could be detrimental?
I may have referred to Dijkstra (R.I.P.) here
Rhett,
To comment on only two aspects of your posting.
Rhett Aultman wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Oleg Tkachenko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Generally, event-driven processing is a pretty good thing. The critical issue with it, though, is the ratio of event production to event
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
Manuel...
Manuel Mall wrote:
Peter,
thanks for the update and explanation on your Alt-Design.
To be honest: I like it. Reminds me very much of my first exposure to
programming language processing (Compilers) nearly 30 years ago = top-down
recursive-decent parsing for Pascal. I still think its
Victor Mote wrote:
Oleg Tkachenko wrote:
I think we should separate fo tree itself from the process of its
building. fo
tree structure is required and I agree with Keiron - it's not a
DOM, it's just
tree representation and I cherish the idea to make it an
effectively small
Victor Mote wrote:
Victor Mote wrote:
Oleg Tkachenko wrote:
I think we should separate fo tree itself from the process of its
building. fo
tree structure is required and I agree with Keiron - it's not a
DOM, it's just
tree representation and I cherish the idea to make it an
effectively
Peter B. West wrote:
[...]
STATUS:
The XML pull buffering has been working for some considerable time. I
have simply been extending the get/expect methods on top of the simpler
methods as I have found a requirement for them in building the FO tree.
In cases where the DTD is well known and
Peter B. West wrote:
quote
...
Echoing sentiments recently expressed in this publication, Clark said
that SAX, though efficient, was very hard to use, and that DOM had
obvious limitations due to the requirement that the document being
processed be in memory. He suggested that what was needed
On Thu, 2002-11-21 at 12:43, Victor Mote wrote:
To conclude, if I were designing this system from scratch, based on what I
know right now, I would:
1. Use DOM for both the fo tree the area tree.
I don't know whether I would call it a DOM but the area tree is an
independant data structure that
Victor Mote wrote:
The issue with SAX as I see it, is that because it is one-way, and our
processing is not (I think the standard calls it non-linear), we
presumably have to essentially build our own DOM-ish (random access) things
in order to get the job done.
I think we should separate fo tree
Oleg,
...
Oleg Tkachenko wrote:
Peter B. West wrote:
taking a very isolated path. My motivation can be summed up in the
slogan SAX SUX. I couldn't understand why anyone would persist with
it for any complex tasks, e.g. FOP.
Actually I cannot say I fully agree with this, because I don't
Keiron Liddle wrote:
On Thu, 2002-11-21 at 12:43, Victor Mote wrote:
To conclude, if I were designing this system from scratch,
based on what I
know right now, I would:
1. Use DOM for both the fo tree the area tree.
I don't know whether I would call it a DOM but the area tree is an
Oleg Tkachenko wrote:
I think we should separate fo tree itself from the process of its
building. fo
tree structure is required and I agree with Keiron - it's not a
DOM, it's just
tree representation and I cherish the idea to make it an
effectively small
structure like saxon's internal
Peter,
thanks for the update and explanation on your Alt-Design.
To be honest: I like it. Reminds me very much of my first exposure to
programming language processing (Compilers) nearly 30 years ago = top-down
recursive-decent parsing for Pascal. I still think its the best parsing
model around
Great work Peter!
It makes a lot of sense to use higher-level than SAX events, and thanks for
explaining this so clearly.
If you allow me a suggestion regarding the structure of the code: maybe using
some table-driven stuff instead of the many if statements in
FoSimplePageMaster would be more
23 matches
Mail list logo
