[jdom-interest] jdom and dom4j
bytecode at Phreaker.net
Tue Jun 18 13:25:40 PDT 2002
I agree. The fact that the JSR has not moved an inch on the JCP
page in a years time (Expert group is being formed) speaks for itslef.
JSR's have known to be abandoned in the past... so I wouldnt put
too much weight behind this.
bob mcwhirter wrote:
> > The fact JDOM is going through the JCP process as an official JSR isn't
> > mentioned either.
> I thought we'd gone over this a few times, and decided that the JSR status
> was basically meaningless?
> Am I wrong, or is the fact JDOM is a JSR only means that JDOM will be using
> the JCP for its own development, but implies nothing regarding the "Java
> Standard". If/when JSR 102 reaches maturity, will org.jdom.* become
> a part of the JDK or JAXPacks? (or, renamed to javax.xml.tree.*, or
> > Looking just at the facts on the page, JDOM now has integrated XPath (as
> > of the latest CVS code) and we've had integrated JAXP/TRaX support for
> > quite a long time. Both of those bullet items should be updated.
> > The "Massive documents" and "event-based processing" items probably
> > refer to dom4j's feature to only build parts of the tree. Laurent wrote
> > similar code for JDOM. Look at the "spanner" code in jdom-contrib. If
> > it becomes popular and people like the API, we'll make it core.
> I think, in both cases, he's comparing out-of-the-box with out-of-the-box,
> ignoring contrib'd projects. I think. I could certainly be wrong.
> > Hmm, dom4j says "built on Java interfaces". What that probably should
> > say is it's built on its own interfaces. Both dom4j and JDOM support
> > standard interfaces like java.util.List, Cloneable, and so on.
> Interface-based as opposed to concrete-class based, is the point he's
> trying to make, I think.
> > Hmm, other interesting features that aren't mentioned are whether the
> > API can *output* a document. DOM L2 doesn't even support that in a
> > standard manner. I suspect there's a lot of features that could be
> > added to a list like this. Perhaps we should write a comparison chart
> > on the JDOM site.
> There's been quite a few charts/tables comparing JDOM to DOM in many
> regards. But typically, the folks constructing the charts/tables
> ignore dom4j completely. dom4j hasn't gotten nearly the press
> attention as JDOM.
> To control your jdom-interest membership:
More information about the jdom-interest