[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: DOM vs JDOM
- From: Uche Ogbuji <email@example.com>
- To: Tom Bradford <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:49:53 -0700 (MST)
> SNedunuri@pav.com wrote:
> > In their article Easy Java/XML integration with JDOM, Part 1 in JavaWorld,
> > http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-05-2000/jw-0518-jdom.htm
> > Hunter and McLaughlin say: "DOM represents a document tree fully held in
> > memory."
> This is a statement to promote their project and generate FUD for the
> DOM. While I like JDOM and have my complaints about the DOM, there's
> not much difference between JDOM and most DOM implementations other than
> the fact that JDOM isn't interface and factory-based.
> > Is there anything inherent in the DOM interface that requires the document
> > to be held in memory? Why does the DOM interface require that a document be
> > fully held any more than the JDOM interface does?
> There is nothing that requires a DOM tree to be held in memory other
> than the DOM implementation itself. Lazy DOMs allow you to
> incrementally retrieve and traverse DOM trees, I believe the Xerces
> project was working on such a beast, and the dbXML DOM is partially a
> lazy DOM.
Yep. 4Suite's DbDom is also a lazy DOM. I agree that the claims quoted
from the article are disingenuous.
Uche Ogbuji Principal Consultant
email@example.com +1 303 583 9900 x 101
Fourthought, Inc. http://Fourthought.com
4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA
Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python