As Dean said, it doesn't make sense to make every call thread-safe. This would be a huge overhead, and most people wouldn't need it anyway (locking is always more efficient when done in an application-aware way).
Also, ask about performance (or run your own tests). At least in my tests, the MS parser has been very slow (especially for large documents). Be sure to run the parser tests with YOUR data, however, because performance of any XML parser is data-dependent. MSXML is also not Open Source and not cross-platform, so you get locked into both the MS parser and the MS OS! The Apache XML parser runs on a whole bunch of platforms (including NT, Linux, HP, Solaris, AIX, all the way up to giant mainframes like 390), so you have more freedom to scale your application when it takes off. Both API and User-Guide documentation is provided, AND it doesn't require a COM manual to use. I'm curious, does your group already have MSXML code written in COM? Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Its as thread safe as the Java parser basically. In either case, it is > assumed that each thread either has its own parser instance, or that > multiple thread access to a single parser instead is synchronized. Same for > DOM trees as well. I doubt very seriously that the MS parser is any > different because it wouldn't make any sense to do so. > > ---------------------------------------- > Dean Roddey > Software Weenie > IBM Center for Java Technology - Silicon Valley > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Scott Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 02/29/2000 04:39:52 PM > > Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > cc: > Subject: Xerces-C Multithreading > > Pardon my ignorance, but I am trying to convince our development group to > use the Xerces-C parser instead of the Microsoft Parser in our future > projects. > > I have been using Xerces-J in my own projects without a problem, but I do > not know C++. I pointed one of our developers to the xml.apache.org site, > and he just turned up his nose saying that the parser is not thread-safe in > Windows and the documentation is in source code, and that is > _unacceptable_. > > I do not believe that is a good enough reason to dump Xerces, so my > question > to you is Xerces-C thread-safe, and in which version? > > Thank you > Scott Sanders
