Hello Tatu,

On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 22:22:16 -0800 (PST)
Tatu Saloranta <cowtowncoder@y...> wrote:

...
> > 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.
> 
> But wouldn't the best way to know for sure be to try
> them out?

Unfortunately, I don't have luxury of having time to try everything.

> Since all these choices basically still do
> the same thing (offer a mutable in-memory tree model
> of the xml infoset) it may not be possible to
> summarize differences in simple yet accurate and
> dev-credible way.
> 
> I agree in that XOM gets closest to fully explaining
> its philosophy: about the only major goal not listed
> above is (if I'm not mistaken) 'correctness'. Some
> people like that clarity; others prefer JDom for its
> simplifications (while others disagree them as
> oversimplifications); and yet others dom4j for its
> more advanced object model above and beyond JDom. To
> each his own.

In most applications, the actual DOM implementation is a second
role issue, and paying attention to it is just wasting of efforts. For
unimportant issues, the defaults are ok.

> 
> -+ Tatu +-
> 
> 

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