highos at linuxfromscratch.org
Mon Jan 27 14:23:34 PST 2003
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 10:49:42PM +0100, Vassili Dzuba wrote:
> So, I think that the support of xInclude is a reason
> good enough for nALFS to stay with DOM.
Heh, Heh... SAX vs. DOM, Eh?
This is one subject i've had plenty of time to think about, let alone
discsuss with various friends. When I had originally given up all hope of
trying to find someone that could maintain the original perl ALFS
implementation and started to hack together halfling, I was using expat,
just like nALFS used a little while later on it's initial release.
After using it for a short while, I notice how limiting it is, which is
about when I switched to using libxml. After spending a fair amount of
time debating about using the SAX interface, I decided to go with DOM
and spend a bit of time trying to make the code as simple as possible.
What's in CVS right now is an example of all that. It lacks a *hell* of
alot of error checking that it should have, but anyone that knows a bit of
C or other programming languages are able to read the code and follow it
quite well. And doing my own testing, even though DOM ends up loading
everything once and then processing it.. unless we start using 1MB+ XML
profiles, there shouldn't be that much of a performance loss.
Dunno, id recommend sticking with the DOM interface just for the features
that are easily available by adding a line or two to your code :)
[And to all the ALFS'ers out there... hopefully I'll be able to spend some
time focusing on this project again, been a few hectic months for me :)]
Jesse Tie-Ten-Quee ( highos at linuxfromscratch dot org )
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe alfs-discuss' in the subject header of the message
More information about the alfs-discuss