Re: PJDOM

• To: thezvi@ifrance.com, ozone-users-list <ozone-users@ozone-db.org>
• Subject: Re: PJDOM
• From: Lars Martin <lars@softwarebuero.de>
• Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 14:48:43 +0200
• Organization: SMB
• References: <3910A189.328DC351@ifrance.com>

Hi,

Thu, 04 May 2000 Zvi wrote:
>b/c it's super lightweight comparing to W3C DOM:

I'm not sure about this. Today the JDOM API is smaller than W3C DOM,
b/c JDOM does't not support namespaces and such features. But in the
mailinglist you can read articles about inclusion of namespace support
for JDOM in the next future. So I think there will be not much functional
deferences between W3C DOM and JDOM?!

>1. classes vs. interfaces
>2. fast performance (close to SAX as they say)
>3. simplified memory model for XML documents
>4. lower memory consumtion
>5. using Java 2 Collections API, like ODMG => easier to implement in Ozone

I welcome the simplified API in JDOM. Something like
  element.setValue () in JDOM is easier to understand as
  element.getChild().setValue () in W3C DOM.

Regards,
Lars
--
________________________________________________________________
Lars Martin                         mailto:lars@softwarebuero.de
softwarebuero m&b (SMB)              http://www.softwarebuero.de

• References:
  • Re: PJDOM
    • From: Zvi <thezvi@ifrance.com>

• Prev by Date: Re: FWD: Re: Update Failed without Integer type??
• Next by Date: usability
• Prev by thread: Re: PJDOM
• Next by thread: Very slow printing.
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread