Re^6: Is there any XML reader like this? (XML::Simple beats LibXML hands down in the speed stakes!)

Yeah, LibXML. My tests *included* the time it took to extract the data from the tree.

Hm. So did mine. But I believe mine.

We use XML::Bare with a thin layer to compensate for it's awful interface (XML::Simple without ForceArray or any other option)

Hm. XML::Bare::forcearray( [noderef] )

S'funny init. It took less than a minute to disprove that. And after 5 minutes, I'm pretty sure I could use XML::Bare to read a file and get access to its content.

Conversely, when I tried to look up getDocumentElement, I completely crapped out after about an hour. You applied it to the return from load_xml() which is labelled $dom. So look in DOM. Nada. Maybe a Node. Nada. How about a parser, or a nodelist or a namespace? Nada, nada, nada!

Your idea of an "awful interface" is weird.

For me:

the best interface is the one I don't have to lookup more than once.
That means small.
The second best interface is one that makes it easy to lookup what I need to know.
That means the first page shows me enough to get something working.
Details, refinements and esoterica can be deferred to secondary pages if that cannot be avoided.
The third best interface is one that if it has to be large, is logically grouped.
That means, it starts by splitting the documentation along vertical lines. Ie. The way people need to use the interface. Eg, Read an XML; or write an XML; or edit an XML. etc. Not horizontally according to some arbitrary way the author decided to structure his code.
And it means starting with the basics in the root document, in the form of simple -- but complete -- worked examples of the main modes of use. And leaving the esoteric details for (preferably linked (and links that actually work)) secondary pages.
Not hitting the user in the face with a top level synopsis that contain every possible variation of the constructor and no indication of where to go from there.

XML::LibXML fails on every count.

Can we stop now, because we are once again doing nothing to help the OP; nor each other.

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

The start of some sanity?

Comment on Re^6: Is there any XML reader like this? (XML::Simple beats LibXML hands down in the speed stakes!) Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^7: Is there any XML reader like this? (XML::Simple beats LibXML hands down in the speed stakes!) by tobyink (Canon) on Jan 16, 2012 at 10:29 UTC
I really don't see how the documentation for XML::LibXML could be especially difficult to follow for anyone who is vaguely familiar with Perl OO programming. Just follow the usual rule: If `$obj->isa($class)` then consult `perldoc $class`. The documentation for the parser says that `load_xml` "the return value [...] is a XML::LibXML::Document object". So you turn to the XML::LibXML::Document documentation. The method is called `documentElement`. It's shown in the SYNOPSIS for XML::LibXML::Document, and documented further down in the METHODS section. `getDocumentElement` is just an alias for `documentElement` so is documented much less prominently, so I can understand how that could have been harder to find, but most clients that you'd view documentation in (e.g. browser, "man", "perldoc") allow you to search for strings quite easily. But anyway, some of your statements on XML::LibXML reveal what I think is a fundamental difference between what you want to do with XML, and what XML::LibXML is designed for. You just want to get data out of XML and handle it as some sort of native data structure. XML::LibXML is for people who want to keep their data in as XMLish a form as possible (short of loading it into memory as a single XML formatted string and manipulating it with regexps!) - for people who care (not just at loading and saving time) about the difference between: `<html> <head><title>Foo</title></head> </html>` [download] and: `<html> <head title="Foo" /> </html>` [download] For people who, given a node `$x` in some deeply nested data structure, sometimes need to do `$x->parentNode`. If you don't need to do that sort of stuff, then perhaps there's a mismatch between your needs and XML::LibXML's aims. I can tell you that XML::Simple would have been quite useless for something like XML::Atom::OWL.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^8: Is there any XML reader like this? (XML::Simple beats LibXML hands down in the speed stakes!) by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Jan 16, 2012 at 11:00 UTC
If you don't need to do that sort of stuff, then perhaps there's a mismatch between your needs and XML::LibXML's aims. Finally, we agree on something. Most, not all, but most, of my XML needs are for gaining read-only access to relatively small volumes of simple data. Unencoded, with no namespaces or CDATA with no need to look at comments. Mostly configuration data, RDF feeds and similar. Things for which XML::Simple is ideal and XML::LibXML is simply overkill. Ie. Exactly the sort if simple XML shown by the OP above. The same data for which you suggested he abandon the simple, easy to use, clearly documented tool he was using in favour of an the over-engineered, horribly documented, behemoth of a chainsaw that is XML::LibXML. Just as I don't use a chainsaw to trim my toenails, I use the XML tool that suits my purpose. With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday' Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. The start of some sanity?	[reply]
Re^9: Is there any XML reader like this? (XML::Simple beats LibXML hands down in the speed stakes!) by Jenda (Abbot) on Jan 16, 2012 at 12:11 UTC
I would recommend having a look at XML::Rules. Not only it can match the (assumed) simplicity of XML::Simple thanks to its ability to infer a default set of transformation rules from examples or a DTD, ensuring consistency of the datastructure built even with XMLs containing optionally repeated tags or optional attributes, but it allows you to tweak the datastructure built from your XML to better suit your needs and, should the files get too big, allows you to trim and/or process the datastructure as it's being built. Jenda Enoch was right! Enjoy the last years of Rome.	[reply]
Re^9: Is there any XML reader like this? (XML::Simple beats LibXML hands down in the speed stakes!) by ikegami (Patriarch) on Jan 16, 2012 at 20:06 UTC
"Unencoded"? XML::Simple doesn't handle such broken XML. $ perl -MXML::Simple -e'XMLin("<root><foo>\xE9</foo></root>");' Entity: line 1: parser error : Input is not proper UTF-8, indicate encoding ! Bytes: 0xE9 0x3C 0x2F 0x66 <root><foo>�</foo></root> ^ Just as I don't use a chainsaw to trim my toenails, I use the XML tool that suits my purpose. I didn't not try to get you to use XML::LibXML. I was just contradicting obviously incorrect information.	[reply]
Re^10: Is there any XML reader like this? (XML::Simple beats LibXML hands down in the speed stakes!) by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Jan 16, 2012 at 20:17 UTC
Re^7: Is there any XML reader like this? (XML::Simple beats LibXML hands down in the speed stakes!) by ikegami (Patriarch) on Jan 16, 2012 at 19:58 UTC
Your idea of an "awful interface" is weird. Usable, readable. If I have to use a gazillion defined and ref checks to extract one value, it's not usable, given that one function call is all that's needed. I've used XML::Simple and XML::LibXML, yet only the former gives me trouble. Can we stop now, because we are once again doing nothing to help the OP; nor each other. Then stop using the word "you" and stick to the subject.	[reply]