lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Yonik Seeley <ysee...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: "Advanced" query language
Date Fri, 16 Dec 2005 03:22:20 GMT
Agreed, that is a significant downside.
StAX is included in Java 6, but that doesn't help too much given the
Java 1.4 req.

-Yonik

On 12/15/05, Wolfgang Hoschek <wolfgang.hoschek@mac.com> wrote:
> STAX would probably make coding easier, but unfortunately complicates
> the packaging side: one must ship at least two additional external
> jars (stax interfaces and impl) for it to become usable. Plus, STAX
> is quite underspecified (I wrote a STAX parser + serializer impl
> lately), so there's room for runtime suprises with different impls.
> The primary advantage of SAX is that everything is included in JDK >=
> 1.4, and that impls tend to be more mature. SAX bottom line: more
> hassle early on, less hassle later.
>
> Wolfgang.
>
> On Dec 15, 2005, at 5:47 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
>
> > On 12/15/05, markharw00d <markharw00d@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> At this stage I am more interested in feedback on parser design/
> >> approach
> >>
> >
> > Excellent idea.
> > While SAX is fast, I've found callback interfaces more difficult to
> > deal with while generating nested object graphs... it normally
> > requires one to maintain state in stack(s).
> >
> > Have you considered a pull-parser like StAX or XPP?  They are as fast
> > as SAX, and allow you to ask for the next XML event you are interested
> > in, eliminating the need to keep track of where you are by other means
> > (the place in your own code and normal variables do that).  It
> > normally turns into much more natural code.
> >
> > -Yonik

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org


Mime
View raw message