You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to fop-users@xmlgraphics.apache.org by "Peter B. West" <li...@pbw.id.au> on 2005/08/21 23:57:22 UTC

StAX, JAXP 1.4

Fopsters,

Some of you may be aware of the activity going on around StAX.  Java 1.6 
(Mustang) was to have included JAXP 1.4, but that looks to be on hold 
until Dolphin.  However, StAX will be part of it, and soon enough, SAX 
will be a dim memory.

Obviously, Folio (nee FOP Alt-Design), built on a stream parsing model, 
will eventually retro-fit StAX and, later, JAXP 1.4.  It's not high on 
my priorities just now.

However, if someone wants to steal a march in getting a handle on what 
will soon be the standard way of parsing XML, feel free to do the 
retro-fit on Folio.  It's an existing stream-parsed application, so the 
structure requires no changes.  If you're interested,contact me directly.

Peter
-- 
Peter B. West <http://cv.pbw.id.au/>
Folio <http://defoe.sourceforge.net/folio/>

Re: StAX, JAXP 1.4

Posted by Elliotte Harold <el...@metalab.unc.edu>.
Peter B. West wrote:
> Fopsters,
> 
> Some of you may be aware of the activity going on around StAX.  Java 1.6 
> (Mustang) was to have included JAXP 1.4, but that looks to be on hold 
> until Dolphin.  However, StAX will be part of it, and soon enough, SAX 
> will be a dim memory.
> 

Yeah, right. I give this claim about as much credence as I gave the 
claims that schemas were going to replace DTDs. StAX isn't as 
disastrously bad as schemas were, but it certainly hasn't justified the 
hype either. So far I've seen approximately no evidence that it provides 
any noticeable improvements over SAX. Some people find StAX easier to 
use the SAX for some use cases, but not all. I suspect Sun never saw the 
performance improvements they were hoping for from StAX which is why 
they're now off and running up another wrong path called "Fast Infoset". 
(I was just looking at some 3rd party performance numbers on that this 
morning, and guess what? It isn't working out either.)

I don't think SAX is the ultimate in XML performance, but I suspect even 
a factor of two improvement over SAX is going to require something a lot 
more radical than StAX.

-- 
Elliotte Rusty Harold  elharo@metalab.unc.edu
XML in a Nutshell 3rd Edition Just Published!
http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xian3/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596007647/cafeaulaitA/ref=nosim