Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
  1. Home
  2. General Programming
  3. C / C++ / MFC
  4. are those xml parsers worth beans?

are those xml parsers worth beans?

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved C / C++ / MFC
apacheoraclexmlhelpquestion
5 Posts 5 Posters 0 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • S Offline
    S Offline
    stephen hazel
    wrote on last edited by
    #1

    Okay. I gotta read in some xml files. I've checked out the xml parsers from apache (xerces) and oracle (xdk). I don't see why I can't just parse the dang xml files myself. I mean, it sure doesn't seem to ME that parsin these things would be hard. (ignoring unknown tags, etc). Anybody got any warnings for me about why I -should- use one of these things? They seem to add to the code pile and not give ya much in return. Any help? Thanks! Steve.

    R H A 3 Replies Last reply
    0
    • S stephen hazel

      Okay. I gotta read in some xml files. I've checked out the xml parsers from apache (xerces) and oracle (xdk). I don't see why I can't just parse the dang xml files myself. I mean, it sure doesn't seem to ME that parsin these things would be hard. (ignoring unknown tags, etc). Anybody got any warnings for me about why I -should- use one of these things? They seem to add to the code pile and not give ya much in return. Any help? Thanks! Steve.

      R Offline
      R Offline
      Ryan_Roberts
      wrote on last edited by
      #2

      An incomplete XML parser, ie one that does not validate, would be easy enough. In fact there are 2 lightweight parsers on Codeproject, one of them (PugXML) is free. A full implementation is an massive Job, hence the enormous footprints of XML libs. Ryan.

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • S stephen hazel

        Okay. I gotta read in some xml files. I've checked out the xml parsers from apache (xerces) and oracle (xdk). I don't see why I can't just parse the dang xml files myself. I mean, it sure doesn't seem to ME that parsin these things would be hard. (ignoring unknown tags, etc). Anybody got any warnings for me about why I -should- use one of these things? They seem to add to the code pile and not give ya much in return. Any help? Thanks! Steve.

        H Offline
        H Offline
        HPSI
        wrote on last edited by
        #3

        Steve, You're probably right to be skeptical. Most XML parsers pull in huge amounts of code, to do very little. CMarkup is a very lightweight class that's easy to use and is ideal for "read-only" XML apps. HPS HwndSpy - GUI developer's aid to visually locate and inspect windows. For the month of August only, use coupon code CP-81239 for 30% off.

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • S stephen hazel

          Okay. I gotta read in some xml files. I've checked out the xml parsers from apache (xerces) and oracle (xdk). I don't see why I can't just parse the dang xml files myself. I mean, it sure doesn't seem to ME that parsin these things would be hard. (ignoring unknown tags, etc). Anybody got any warnings for me about why I -should- use one of these things? They seem to add to the code pile and not give ya much in return. Any help? Thanks! Steve.

          A Offline
          A Offline
          Alexander Ruscle
          wrote on last edited by
          #4

          In my experience with using the MS XML parser, the results were fairly close to what you described (added to the code pile) plus giving my users the added benefit of extra time to go get that cup of coffee they need while my code plods through a 3MB XML file. Parsing the file manually speeds things up dramatically. To date I have not found an efficient parser, but that's mainly because all the good parsers have a lot of overhead while they make sure everything is kosher. In our situations we can probably make some assumptions about the particular file we're parsing, which can add to efficiency. -ar

          S 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • A Alexander Ruscle

            In my experience with using the MS XML parser, the results were fairly close to what you described (added to the code pile) plus giving my users the added benefit of extra time to go get that cup of coffee they need while my code plods through a 3MB XML file. Parsing the file manually speeds things up dramatically. To date I have not found an efficient parser, but that's mainly because all the good parsers have a lot of overhead while they make sure everything is kosher. In our situations we can probably make some assumptions about the particular file we're parsing, which can add to efficiency. -ar

            S Offline
            S Offline
            Steve S
            wrote on last edited by
            #5

            Are these comments all about DOM? I found that using SAX was harder work, but was quite a lot faster, since it does the basic recognition for you. Typically, we're handling XML in excess of 100Mb in a couple of minutes. Of course, processing (as opposed to loading) takes a bit longer :-) Steve S

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            Reply
            • Reply as topic
            Log in to reply
            • Oldest to Newest
            • Newest to Oldest
            • Most Votes


            • Login

            • Don't have an account? Register

            • Login or register to search.
            • First post
              Last post
            0
            • Categories
            • Recent
            • Tags
            • Popular
            • World
            • Users
            • Groups