--- "Oleg A. Paraschenko" <> 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.
But wouldn't the best way to know for sure be to try
them out? 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.
-+ Tatu +-
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
