XML Modules Comparisons

toadi has asked for the wisdom of the Perl Monks concerning the following question:

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: XML Modules an by Masem (Monsignor) on Jul 09, 2001 at 15:29 UTC
In both the case of XML::Simple and XML::Parser, these only deal with the input of XML into your program; you'd still need another module that deals with the output such as XML::AutoWriter; thus your input and output methods may seem very disjointed. While I've not used Xerces, it easy to see that it handles both sides of XML (parsing and generating). The only thing that is of concern is that it is a perl module that sits on top of a C/C++ library; thus, some of the function calling seems to get hairy, and there might be some performance penalties. Xerces appears to be very well documented by the Apache team (I've yet to see anything Apache puts out that's poorly documented), so you'll find just as much info about Xerces as you would with XML::Simple or ::Parser. I'd say the best thing to do is to try to write some quick sample application code using both, and decide which one feels 'best' to work with, with all other factors being equal; consider expandibility, code maintainence, and how others may seem the code as part of your decision. Dr. Michael K. Neylon - mneylon-pm@masemware.com \|\| "You've left the lens cap of your mind on again, Pinky" - The Brain	[reply]
Re: Re: XML Modules an by clintp (Curate) on Jul 09, 2001 at 17:40 UTC
Small correction: XML::Simple does have an output method (XMLout) that will take a perl structure and produce XML for it.	[reply]
Re2: XML Modules comparison by pmas (Hermit) on Jul 09, 2001 at 17:46 UTC
Masem said it all. I will consider also to compare support for arr considered modules (mail lists, if any), try to post a question if any arises during pilot test, and compare response. If module has strong following, it is likely it will stay around for a while. SO if you invest time to develop any module, you want the module with staying power. pmas To make errors is human. But to make million errors per second, you need a computer.	[reply]
Re: XML Modules Comparisons by Coyote (Deacon) on Jul 09, 2001 at 20:50 UTC
In addition to the modules suggested by Masem, you might want to check out mirod's XML::Twig module which is well documented at http://www.xmltwig.com, Matt Sargent's XML::XPath and the new XML::LibXML module. One to stay away from (IMHO) is XML::DOM which is slow, awkward to use, and doesn't seem to be actively maintained anymore. You also may want to check out the archives of the Perl-XML lists at http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Browse/Threaded/perl-xml, Kip Hampton's articles on Perl and XML at http://www.xml.com, and the Reviews section here at the monestary. If you are interested in Perl-XML application servers, check out these nodes. The articles at xml.com may be of particular interest to you as they recently ran a series of intro articles on the perl xml modules. ---- Coyote	[reply]
Re: XML Modules Comparisons by thraxil (Prior) on Jul 10, 2001 at 00:27 UTC
if close integration with Apache is important, don't overlook axkit or cocoon (warning: cocoon isn't perl.) The built in caching that they both do is nice for performance. anders pearson	[reply]
Re: XML Modules Comparisons by aardvark (Pilgrim) on Jul 10, 2001 at 08:19 UTC
Xerces / Xalan / FOP all have very nice command line features, which is great for somebody who hates to write java code but wants to take advantage of all the great work of the xml.apache.org project. My most used feature of Xerces is a quick command to check the syntax and validate XML. Very handy during development, especially when your writing XML with vi. `java sax.SAXCount -v file_to_validate.xml` [download] Documentation for Xerces Command-line utility Documentation for Xalan Command-line utility Documentation for FOP Command-line utility Get Strong Together!!	[reply] [d/l]
Re: XML Modules Comparisons by dingbat (Initiate) on Jul 10, 2001 at 14:04 UTC
I'd definitely recommend one of the "mainstream" XML tools (for DOM/SAX/XSLT) over another Perl module, even if this involves a Horrible Hack to switch from the Perl environment to the Java world (a "used coffee filter", or whatever they call it) that the DOM was originally coded for. Personally I'm writing XML/XSLT code for M$oft; IE5 and ASP, so I choose to use the MXSML DOM via Win32::OLE even when I'm coding Perl. DOMs aren't standardised; there's a lot of space around the W3C spec that is implementation dependent (especially with namespaces). Using something commonplace is good, and Xerces would be a good choice.	[reply]