Re^2: Accessing attributes in XML::Simple

Considering the size of XML::Simple's docs (including all those options people tend to babble about as making XML::Simple complex) is about one tenth of the size of say XML::LibXML's (even if we ignore SAX and the fact that you have to learn XPath from some other document), I find your statement fairly ... interesting.

XML::Simple is so simple that people tend to forget they have to set the options right. That's its only problem. Other than that for a reasonably designed data-centric XML of reasonable size, it's the easiest. If for no reason than because it doesn't force you to learn yet another set of method names to navigate what's basically just a tree data structure.

Jenda
Enoch was right!
Enjoy the last years of Rome.

Comment on Re^2: Accessing attributes in XML::Simple

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Accessing attributes in XML::Simple by ikegami (Patriarch) on Jan 02, 2010 at 16:42 UTC
See Re^4: The best way to handle different type of XML files (Why I don't think much of XML::Simple) for my reply Considering the size of XML::Simple's docs It provides a lot of functions because it implements the DOM spec. You'll only need a few of them, and they'll be easy to find. (even if we ignore SAX and the fact that you have to learn XPath from some other document), In fact, that's the only thing you need to learn if you're doing data extraction.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^3: Accessing attributes in XML::Simple
by ikegami (Patriarch) on Jan 02, 2010 at 16:42 UTC

Re^4: The best way to handle different type of XML files (Why I don't think much of XML::Simple)

Considering the size of XML::Simple's docs

It provides a lot of functions because it implements the DOM spec. You'll only need a few of them, and they'll be easy to find.

(even if we ignore SAX and the fact that you have to learn XPath from some other document),

In fact, that's the only thing you need to learn if you're doing data extraction.

[reply]