[jdom-interest] JDom doesn't work from the applet embedded in the browser

Colin Johnson CJohnson at SonicWALL.com
Thu Apr 26 12:43:40 PDT 2001

-----Original Message-----
From: philip.nelson at omniresources.com
[mailto:philip.nelson at omniresources.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 7:29 PM
To: Colin Johnson; taresh at yahoo.com; jdom-interest at jdom.org
Subject: RE: [jdom-interest] JDom doesn't work from the applet embedded
in the browser

> The smallest footprint I could get was using JDOM-JDK11.JAR,
> was over 540K !!!!

Yes, we still need a lightweight, non validating parser.  Incidentally,
there are programs out there that can go through your code, and build a
with only the classes you actually need.  Sending the whole
is simply a convienience so you don't have to take it apart yourself.

> For now I'm using a more sensible lightweight XML parser 
> which is a port
> of the JavaScript Xparse (XParseJ).

	I've got JarMaster, but the result is still pretty big :)

As I recall the javascript version was a read only api with no namespace
support, yada yada yada.  JDOM solves a different set of problems that
simply parsing an xml stream into a tree.

	I agree, JDOM has much more functionality and XParseJ is read
only, but its a trvial matter to create your own XML 
	string to send.

	I just think the applet support is sketchy and at the minimum it

	a) Documentation and samples (which I did say to Jason I'd
write, maybe this weekend if I get time)

	b) A better solution than COLLECTIONS.JAR. Admittedly there are
programs such as JarMaster but not everyone has access to them
	and there are none that are free as far as I'm aware. JarMaster
came with the KL-Groups JClass Enterprise Suite which is very expensive.

	My point here is with a little work I'm sure it can be done. The
XParseJ code manages to use both java.utils.List and
java.utils.Hashtable in a JDK-1.1 	manner pretty effectively. I'm
sure JDOM could do the same.


More information about the jdom-interest mailing list