Aleksander Slominski wrote: > the interesting thing with immutable objects (such as element name > represented as interned String) is that they can be kept indefinitely > and shared very efficiently between parser and the user code > > however for other level objects such as start tag even the > benefits, as you describe, are not that clear ...
Well, we're talking about specific kinds of programs. Which is why you've been working on xml-pull APIs and implementations. In this work, have you found much need for the application to keep parts of the docs around (e.g. the event contents) for very long? > > popping the method call stack takes time. If the data fields > > are public on the object returned from "next", then it's > > just an object access. > > that makes java programming slightly more lower level > and fell more like C/C++ :-) I don't have a problem with that. :) > > It's just a question of deciding what functionality is the > > most useful. If 90% of the users end up using this convenience > > method, then it should be part of the core API. And I think > > that this functionality (and some others) are that useful. > > the problem is to resist temptation of adding too much too fast, Yep, I agree. There would certainly be a tendency to add everything but the kitchen sink. :) > we think that in XMLPULL API we have some useful methods > (like nextText/nextTag) and i personally think that more is needed > but it is good to wait a bit and see what is _really_ needed. Yep. It's like when they erect a new building but don't make the sidewalks -- they want to see where people walk *before* laying the concrete. > > Yep. Let me know if you need any pointers understanding > > how the Xerces2 components work within the XNI framework. > > thanks! i have read Xerces2 code and i have general grasp of its > working (in general ...) Okay. Just thought I'd offer my assistance, if needed. I know that there aren't many people out there writing directly to XNI (or if they are, then they're awfully quiet about it ;). > > > > the character buffers. That way I would not have to copy > > > > any characters at all because I would know that the contents > > > > of the char buffers would not be over-written. > > i think it is good for perfromance and will make code > writing text gathering for element content much easier... I don't know about performance... I guess it really depends on the application. -- Andy Clark * [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
