On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 11:05:34 +0100 "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> If you have an application that is entirely about XML > >> processing, use Java. [snip] > > Sure, if your processing needs are simple, the Python implementation > will be simple, and perhaps also reasonably performant. However, > in an application that is all about XML processing, chances are high > that you need a functionality that is not available in the XML library > of your choice, but would be available in Java. > > Regards, > Martin This completely misses the point of XML. Its purpose is to provide a cross-platform, cross-language lingua franca everyone can use. As for complexity, the original permise was to be simple enough that a grad student can write a parser in a weekend. At bit more complexity is acceptable, as long as standards-approved complexity isn't used as a lockin mechanism. The fact that this promise scared the crap out of COTS vendors who then "embraced, enhanced, extended" XML into a bloated stds-based lockin monster is no excuse to surrender. Use a reasonably well-supported (on all platforms and languages) subset of XML. Use the libxml2 bindings. If you find there is XML which is truely unparseable with cross-language tools, then isolate it, translate it to reusable XML, and go from there. (And tell the supplier you are examining other options.) I've had to do this with "XML" data feeds from Microsoft, IBM, and Dassault Systemes products. Java wouldn't have helped. Further, when we've done Java and Python systems in parallel (e.g., in SOAP/SSL communications), python was by far the easiest, cleanest treatment. -- Harry George [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.seanet.com/~hgg9140 _______________________________________________ XML-SIG maillist - XML-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/xml-sig
