Re: Interest in getting more xmlpull-compliant parsers?

Tatu Saloranta wrote:

>After reading thread about continued development of
>xmlpull API, I started wondering if there might be
>interest in getting one more xml pull parser to
>implement xmlpull? I just released a parser I have
>been working on for 2 months (Woodstox) that
>implements StAX. Earlier I thought StAX would
>completely supercede xmlpull, and there wouldn't be
>point in implementing it, but it sounds like that
>might not be the case?
>  
>
hi Tatu,

i think xmlpull will stay around especially when you need very small API 
(very suitable for J2ME) but it is natural that we will look on StAX as 
a future direction of "standardized" XML pull parsing.

>I haven't yet gone through xmlpull API, although it
>seems reasonably simple, and subset of the most
>tangible part of StAX, but in best case there might
>not be that much extra work (need to add exception
>conversion etc small glue things).
>  
>
that i would say is exactly how it is.

>So... what do you think, would it be beneficial to get
>one more xmpull-compliant pull parser available?
>
>  
>
absolutely. feel free to ask questions.

i think it would be interesting to implement as well some of optional 
features/properties such as XML roundtrip support 
http://xmlpull.org/v1/doc/features.html#xml-roundtrip

thanks,

alek

-- 
The best way to predict the future is to invent it - Alan Kay



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/2U_rlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xmlpull-dev/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/