Re^3: Using the XML::Parser Module

I always think of you and cringe a little when I recommend against your module. You did a really admirable job of building something actually usable onto XML::Parser, and for a long time XML::Twig was my indeed favourite. It’s just that expat and XML::Parser really needed that work to be turned into something sane, whereas XML::LibXML is sane to begin with. Sorry. :-) :-(

Re: XPath support: thanks for the pointer; noted.

Makeshifts last the longest.

Comment on Re^3: Using the XML::Parser Module

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Using the XML::Parser Module by mirod (Canon) on Nov 02, 2005 at 15:48 UTC
Agreed, I am not sure expat is that bad, but indeed XML::Parser is a royal pain to deal with, especially when trying to be compatible with various versions. If I had started writing XML::Twig a little later, I would probably would have written it using SAX, and I would have been able to change the parser. As it is, SAX was very new at the time, all other modules were built on top of XML::Parser, so I went with that, and then it got so entangled with XML::Parser's quirks that decoupling them would be real hard now. Oh, and don't feel bad advocating XML::LibXML, it is indeed a very fine module.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^4: Using the XML::Parser Module
by mirod (Canon) on Nov 02, 2005 at 15:48 UTC

Agreed, I am not sure expat is that bad, but indeed XML::Parser is a royal pain to deal with, especially when trying to be compatible with various versions.

If I had started writing XML::Twig a little later, I would probably would have written it using SAX, and I would have been able to change the parser. As it is, SAX was very new at the time, all other modules were built on top of XML::Parser, so I went with that, and then it got so entangled with XML::Parser's quirks that decoupling them would be real hard now.

Oh, and don't feel bad advocating XML::LibXML, it is indeed a very fine module.

[reply]