>>Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: >> >>You have convinced me that pull >>parsing is a useful model in general, which I was extremely skeptical >>of before. However, I remain convinced that the existing parsers in >>Java and the XMLPULL API in particular are deeply flawed. Unless you >>are willing to reconsider the principles that underlie the design of >>XMLPULL, it will not become a suitable API for XML processing.
Elliote, as said earlier, I had started in kXML 1 with event objects and polymorphism. It just turned out to be not to very useful when actually using the API, since the different event types do not have very much in common. Instead, unneccessary overhead and code bloat was caused in applications that are using the parser. You can easily verify this by converting the simple XML-RPC parser example available at http://kxml.org in the samples section to an imaginatory event object based pull parser of your choice. If the XMLPULL design is flawed as you claim, it should be easy to sketch a better API that does not just sound more OO but also justifies the extra object by making application code using the parser better readable. Best, Stefan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
