[jdom-interest] DOMBuilder vs PipedStreams

[Frank Kmiec]

First, let me say that JDOM is very cool and I think that you've largely
delivered on the 80/20 promise. I am promoting its use in my company for xml
configurations among other things. There are persons and situtations that
will call for DOM and SAX, though, which is why I am building an object to
manage parsing and conversion among the different APIs.

> All you have to do is pass the right adapter for the DOM version you're
> using (adapters exist for all popular parsers in org.jdom.adapters).

I agree that org.jdom.adapters covers most of the possible choices today, so
maybe I am being overly-cautious on the issue of neutrality. However, what I
was really asking, I guess, is whether there is a performance benefit from
using a DOMBuilder implementation that is substantial enough to justify
limiting choice of parsers to those vendors who have provided adapters
and/or DOMBuilders.

--Frank

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason Hunter" <jhunter at collab.net>
To: "Frank Kmiec" <kmiec at inil.com>
Cc: <jdom-interest at jdom.org>
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 12:19 AM
Subject: Re: [jdom-interest] DOMBuilder vs PipedStreams


> > I want to be as vendor neutral as possible and it seems to
> > me that the various DOMBuilders are all parser-dependant.
>
> They're not parser dependent.  JDOM can read any DOM and write any DOM.
> All you have to do is pass the right adapter for the DOM version you're
> using (adapters exist for all popular parsers in org.jdom.adapters).
> It's a quirk of DOM that implementations aren't directly compatible, so
> you need this level of indirection.
>
> -jh-
>