Home. 
.

transparent

transparent

transparent

Altova Mailing List Archives


Re: [xml-dev] Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed? If so, why?

From: "Oleg A. Paraschenko" <olpa@-------.-->
To: "Michael Champion" <michael.champion@-------.--->
Date: 4/1/2006 2:43:00 AM
Hello,

On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 10:36:12 -0800
"Michael Champion" <michael.champion@h...> wrote:

...
>  
> But if this is true, why have cleaner, programming language-friendly
> alternatives failed to displace the dear old DOM as the dominant XML
> programming model after all these years?

Being a mediocre Java coder, I wonder if the alternatives do really
provide any benefits, comparing to the standard DOM with XPath support.
I've looked at the home pages of JDOM, dom4j, XOM, and only XOM has
description how it is different from other competitors. I don't believe
the words "easy to use, intuitive, optimised, flexible, unique, open
source": these words are everywhere.


-- 
Oleg Parashchenko  olpa@ http://xmlhack.ru/  XML news in Russian
http://uucode.com/blog/  Generative Programming, XML, TeX, Scheme


transparent
Print
Mail
Like It
Disclaimer
.

These Archives are provided for informational purposes only and have been generated directly from the Altova mailing list archive system and are comprised of the lists set forth on www.altova.com/list/index.html. Therefore, Altova does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy, reliability, completeness, usefulness, non-infringement of intellectual property rights, or quality of any content on the Altova Mailing List Archive(s), regardless of who originates that content. You expressly understand and agree that you bear all risks associated with using or relying on that content. Altova will not be liable or responsible in any way for any content posted including, but not limited to, any errors or omissions in content, or for any losses or damage of any kind incurred as a result of the use of or reliance on any content. This disclaimer and limitation on liability is in addition to the disclaimers and limitations contained in the Website Terms of Use and elsewhere on the site.

.
.

transparent

transparent