OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: [xml-dev] Re: Pipelines : inside or outside the parser ? (was RE: [x

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

I am not specifically asking to use XNI nor to standardize it. There are
other pipelining APIs such as XPipes that could be used, too.

For the moment my background on pipelining APIs is not deep enough for me to
choose one, so most of the development we made are using a very lightweight
API based on the exchange of DOM documents. Theoritically not very
efficient, but it perfectly fits 80% of our needs for now (the remaining 20%
use SAX pipelining).

What I am suggesting is just that the processing pipeline should not be
embedded within the parser. The parser should not be the master piece of an
XML processing pipeline, it should only be seen as a data injector.

The pipelining API and parsing API should be orthogonal.

The Xerces and XNI model is very nice, but I think that validation should be
treated as a task orthogonal to parsing, and exposed outside of the parser,
not as a subtask of parsing.

Best regards,

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : Elena Litani [mailto:elitani@ca.ibm.com]
>Envoye : mercredi 13 mars 2002 22:50
>A : xml-dev
>Objet : [xml-dev] Re: Pipelines : inside or outside the parser ? (was
>RE: [xml-dev] Java Technology and XML : API benchmark)
>Nicolas LEHUEN wrote:
>> Hi Elena,
>> The "bug", or at least unwanted behaviour, is that even if 
>no validation is
>> performed, the XML Schema is loaded and parsed. I don't know 
>if this has a
>> big impact on performance, yet I think the problem would 
>have been easily
>> dismissed if the parsing and validating layers where clearly 
>If validation/schema is turned off, the latest Xerces release is no
>longer loads the XML Schema. In fact, we remove completely XML Schema
>Validator from the pipeline.
>> What I don't like, though, is that all this composition 
>system takes place
>> "under the hood", with a custom interface (XNI), the whole 
>system being
>> hidden under the main parsing API (JAXP). I think this 
>system should be
>> fully outside of the parser, that is to say I think the 
>parser should not be
>> the main API, but a part of a bigger system.
>Well, where do you propose to put XNI? It is not a standard API like
>Elena Litani / IBM Toronto
>The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
>initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS