+1 for removing DOM4J, it's been dead for 10 years. But why do we need a non w3c library at all? Why is JDOM better than DOM? The main reason is that it is supposedly easier to use for Java programmers, but is it that much easier to justify having different APIs? The standard DOM is part of the Java language.

On 10/06/15 21:47, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote: Well... my experience in the ActiveMath group with quite several developers is that JDOM is way easier at representing properly the fine details of XML in its completeness than DOM. Also, we ran experiment with the Xerces DOM implementation around 2005 or so, and basically got the following time factors - Xerces DOM: 4 - Xerces SAX with JDOM: 2 - Saxon SAX with JDOM: 1 So we kept the latest. Note that Xerces is what's inside Oracle's JVM (or used to be). Memory was also considerably better using JDOM. The modern way would be to go for StAX but that is a huge programming change. paul

A quick code search on openhub and github: * library | openhub | github * org.w3c.dom | 180k [1] | 1.1m [2] * jdom 1 | 35k [3] | 112k [4] * stax | 25k [5] | 127k [6] * jdom 2 | 2k [7] | | 20k [8] It seems that jdom2 is not that popular, at least not in the projects tracked by openhub or hosted on github. [1] http://code.openhub.net/search?s=%22import%20org.w3c.dom%22 [2] https://github.com/search?q="import+org.w3c.dom"&type=Code [3] http://code.openhub.net/search?s=%22import%20org.jdom%22 [4] https://github.com/search?q=%22import+org.jdom.%22&type=Code [5] http://code.openhub.net/search?s=%22import%20javax.xml.stream%22 [6] https://github.com/search?q=%22import+javax.xml.stream%22&type=Code [7] http://code.openhub.net/search?s=%22import%20org.jdom2%22 [8] https://github.com/search?q=%22import+org.jdom2%22&type=Code On 06/10/2015 03:53 PM, Paul Libbrecht wrote: > > On 10/06/15 21:47, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote: >> +1 for removing DOM4J, it's been dead for 10 years. >> But why do we need a non w3c library at all? Why is JDOM better than DOM? >> The main reason is that it is supposedly easier to use for Java >> programmers, but is it that much easier to justify having different >> APIs? The standard DOM is part of the Java language. > Well... my experience in the ActiveMath group with quite several > developers is that JDOM is way easier at representing properly the fine > details of XML in its completeness than DOM. Also, we ran experiment > with the Xerces DOM implementation around 2005 or so, and basically got > the following time factors > - Xerces DOM: 4 > - Xerces SAX with JDOM: 2 > - Saxon SAX with JDOM: 1 > So we kept the latest. Note that Xerces is what's inside Oracle's JVM > (or used to be). > Memory was also considerably better using JDOM. > > The modern way would be to go for StAX but that is a huge programming > change. > > paul > > >

On 10 Jun 2015 at 21:45:30, Sergiu Dumitriu (sergiu@xwiki.com(mailto:sergiu@xwiki.com)) wrote: The DOM API was complex enough that several people created frameworks providing alternatives. JDOM is one. That says a lot to me :) And indeed I find it easy to use. Ok so I’ changing the proposal from use JDOM2 to not using DOM4J. If a dev in XWiki needs to manipulate an XML structure he should use one of: * The W3C DOM API * JDOM2 (or XStream, Stax, etc. Note that JDOM is not an XML parser, it uses available JAXP parser) Thanks -Vincent _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

+1 for removing DOM4J, it's been dead for 10 years. But why do we need a non w3c library at all? Why is JDOM better than DOM? The main reason is that it is supposedly easier to use for Java programmers, but is it that much easier to justify having different APIs? The standard DOM is part of the Java language.

On 06/10/2015 11:07 AM, vincent(a)massol.net wrote: -- Sergiu Dumitriu