need an XML parser 
Author Message
 need an XML parser

Hi, I need to find an XML parser, do you know where I can have one?
I use VW 2.5.2.

Thanks

--
Use our news server 'news.foorum.com' from anywhere.
More details at: http://www.*-*-*.com/



Mon, 17 Jan 2005 06:30:20 GMT  
 need an XML parser


Quote:
> Hi, I need to find an XML parser, do you know where I can have one?
> I use VW 2.5.2.

> Thanks

Upgrade to vw 5i.4 or vw 7.

There are a lot of improvements, XML support is just
one of them.  I suggest you download the current NC
version and look at what it has for XML support.

--
Terry
===========================================================
Terry Raymond       Smalltalk Professional Debug Package
Crafted Smalltalk   *Breakpoints* and *Watchpoints* for
80 Lazywood Ln.                  VW and ENVY/Developer
Tiverton, RI  02878

http://www.craftedsmalltalk.com
===========================================================



Mon, 17 Jan 2005 20:37:29 GMT  
 need an XML parser
Quote:

> Hi, I need to find an XML parser, do you know where I can have one?
> I use VW 2.5.2.

> Thanks

You can try http://wiki.cs.uiuc.edu/VisualWorks/VisualWorks+XML+Framework
and http://wiki.cs.uiuc.edu/VisualWorks/DOWNLOAD/

There is a zip file there but I not sure if it has parcels or .st files

Good luck



Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:35:21 GMT  
 need an XML parser



Quote:
> > Hi, I need to find an XML parser, do you know where I can have one?
> > I use VW 2.5.2.

> > Thanks
> You can try http://wiki.cs.uiuc.edu/VisualWorks/VisualWorks+XML+Framework
> and http://wiki.cs.uiuc.edu/VisualWorks/DOWNLOAD/

> There is a zip file there but I not sure if it has parcels or .st files

We used the inDelv XML code with great success on my last project.
However, it seems they've stopped distributing it.  If you find a copy,
I recommend it.  Miles ahead of the mess released in VW 5 -- later
versions have presumably improved from the unbearable mess found
there.

regards,
Bill
www.gryfon.com



Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:00:17 GMT  
 need an XML parser


Quote:

>Hi, I need to find an XML parser, do you know where I can have one?
>I use VW 2.5.2.

well, upgrade to 7 and you'll have one bundled ;-)

Check the UIUC Wiki - http://wiki.cs.uiuc.edu/VisualWorks

We open sourced the XML parser quite awhile back

Quote:

>Thanks



Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:48:25 GMT  
 need an XML parser

Quote:

> Hi, I need to find an XML parser, do you know where I can have one?
> I use VW 2.5.2.

> Thanks

A parser was built and/or distributed at Camp Smalltalk a couple years
back.  The Camp wiki is a good place to start:
http://wiki.cs.uiuc.edu/CampSmalltalk/XmlParser+XSL+and+DOM+Level+2

Paul



Tue, 18 Jan 2005 01:30:15 GMT  
 need an XML parser
[snip]

Quote:
> We used the inDelv XML code with great success on my last project.
> However, it seems they've stopped distributing it.  If you find a copy,
> I recommend it.

I tried this a ways back and found it to be an unsuable, not to mention
unbearable, mess.

Quote:
>  Miles ahead of the mess released in VW 5 -- later
> versions have presumably improved from the unbearable mess found
> there.

The stuff in VW 5 was rather undocumented and somewhat incomplete, but
actually workable. I'm looking forward to VW7.

So, the data point I'm providing is that my experience was the inverse of
Bill's.

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.



Tue, 18 Jan 2005 01:37:26 GMT  
 need an XML parser


Quote:

> [snip]
> > We used the inDelv XML code with great success on my last project.
> > However, it seems they've stopped distributing it.  If you find a copy,
> > I recommend it.

> I tried this a ways back and found it to be an unsuable, not to mention
> unbearable, mess.

> >  Miles ahead of the mess released in VW 5 -- later
> > versions have presumably improved from the unbearable mess found
> > there.

> The stuff in VW 5 was rather undocumented and somewhat incomplete, but
> actually workable. I'm looking forward to VW7.

> So, the data point I'm providing is that my experience was the inverse of
> Bill's.

I'm curious -- what did you find  unusable about the inDelv XML parser?
The main problems I had with the VW parser were a) it was entirely
undocumented, including no comments in the code and b) it was far too
tightly coupled to the file-in/file-out usage it appears to have been
included
for.

Bill



Tue, 18 Jan 2005 03:01:21 GMT  
 need an XML parser

I'm not sure but I think that I cant upgrade to VW 5i or 7. I've look a
CincomSmalltalk procedure to upgrade to 5i and it's said that I need to
investigate changes maded in base code. Our code is old and messy, some code has
more than ten years, a lot a programmers have worked on it (more than 100), and
some didn't put comments. So I think that I can't made the upgrade, Am I wrong?

--
Use our news server 'news.foorum.com' from anywhere.
More details at: http://nnrpinfo.go.foorum.com/



Wed, 19 Jan 2005 04:56:52 GMT  
 need an XML parser

Quote:

> I'm not sure but I think that I cant upgrade to VW 5i or 7. I've look a
> CincomSmalltalk procedure to upgrade to 5i and it's said that I need to
> investigate changes maded in base code. Our code is old and messy, some code has
> more than ten years, a lot a programmers have worked on it (more than 100), and
> some didn't put comments. So I think that I can't made the upgrade, Am I wrong?

Pardon the bluntness, but you are wrong.  It's just a matter of how much
effort is required to make the transition, and I'm sure you even already
knew that (but just weren't thinking).

Some time ago, I and one other guy did most of the port of a rather
large app from VW2.5.2 to VW5i.4.  It was actually easier than I had
initially feared.  I'd bet your situation would also prove to be easier
than you currently think, just as mine was easier than I had been thinking.

Nevin



Wed, 19 Jan 2005 04:39:07 GMT  
 need an XML parser


Quote:

>I'm not sure but I think that I cant upgrade to VW 5i or 7. I've look a
>CincomSmalltalk procedure to upgrade to 5i and it's said that I need to
>investigate changes maded in base code. Our code is old and messy, some code has
>more than ten years, a lot a programmers have worked on it (more than 100), and
>some didn't put comments. So I think that I can't made the upgrade, Am I wrong?

We have upgraded numerous customers with code bases that old.  See:

http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com:8080/CincomSmalltalkWiki/How+Do+I+Upgr...

and

http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com:8080/CincomSmalltalkWiki/What+Changed+...

and

http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com:8080/CincomSmalltalkWiki/What+Changed+...

and, for a look at what 7 has, see

http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com:8080/CincomSmalltalkWiki/VW+7+White+Pa...



Wed, 19 Jan 2005 04:43:39 GMT  
 need an XML parser

[snip]

Quote:
> I'm curious -- what did you find  unusable about the inDelv XML parser?

It's been a long time, I think just found it awkward and ugly. Classnames,
methods, the over all structure just plain repelled me. Sorry, I can't
give better details, as I said, it's been a while.

Quote:
> The main problems I had with the VW parser were a) it was entirely
> undocumented, including no comments in the code

Yeah, that was a bummer. OTOH, I was able to make a lot of progress just
poking around. I wasn't able to get very far with the indelv parser (which
I also poked at for porting to squeak).

Quote:
>and b) it was far too
> tightly coupled to the file-in/file-out usage it appears to have been
> included
> for.

Hmm. I found that the parts needed for that were more implemented, but it
doesn't seem *coupled* to me. Even in 5i, they had preliminary XSLT
support that was actually reasonable useful (in so far as XSLT is :)) and
I found fun. That isn't used, AFAIK, in the filein/out stuff.

So I find that remark a bit puzzling. Could you explain further?

After 5i the framework has definitely gotten better though it's, as of the
last time I peeked, not copiously document or fully complete. I expect VW7
to be quite nice.

(I ported 5i's parser to squeak, which was the used to build SoapOpera, a
soap/squeak distribute object framework. Is that a counterexample to the
coupling claim?)

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.



Wed, 19 Jan 2005 05:52:59 GMT  
 need an XML parser


Quote:

> I'm not sure but I think that I cant upgrade to VW 5i or 7. I've look a
> CincomSmalltalk procedure to upgrade to 5i and it's said that I need to
> investigate changes maded in base code. Our code is old and messy, some
> code has more than ten years, a lot a programmers have worked on it
> (more than 100), and some didn't put comments. So I think that I can't
> made the upgrade, Am I wrong?

The problems you would encounter would be where you
have changed the base classes or created views that
are difficult to change from polling to events.  You
could also have problems if you use 3rd party add-ins
and they are not available in 5i.

The other consideration is evaluating how active your
current development is and if the upgrade would
provide enough improvements and balancing this off
with the increased cost of VW.  You would have to
negotiate with Cincom about licensing fees, some
kind of grandfather arrangement.  You don't want
to accept their standard price model because the benefit
of 5i to you is not the same as if you had used 5i
for all of your development.

--
Terry
===========================================================
Terry Raymond       Smalltalk Professional Debug Package
Crafted Smalltalk   *Breakpoints* and *Watchpoints* for
80 Lazywood Ln.                  VW and ENVY/Developer
Tiverton, RI  02878

http://www.craftedsmalltalk.com
===========================================================



Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:20:40 GMT  
 need an XML parser


Quote:

> [snip]
> > I'm curious -- what did you find  unusable about the inDelv XML parser?

> It's been a long time, I think just found it awkward and ugly. Classnames,
> methods, the over all structure just plain repelled me. Sorry, I can't
> give better details, as I said, it's been a while.

> > The main problems I had with the VW parser were a) it was entirely
> > undocumented, including no comments in the code

> Yeah, that was a bummer. OTOH, I was able to make a lot of progress just
> poking around. I wasn't able to get very far with the indelv parser (which
> I also poked at for porting to squeak).

> >and b) it was far too
> > tightly coupled to the file-in/file-out usage it appears to have been
> > included
> > for.

> Hmm. I found that the parts needed for that were more implemented, but it
> doesn't seem *coupled* to me. Even in 5i, they had preliminary XSLT
> support that was actually reasonable useful (in so far as XSLT is :)) and
> I found fun. That isn't used, AFAIK, in the filein/out stuff.

> So I find that remark a bit puzzling. Could you explain further?

Well, as you say, it's been a while since I was into that code, and no,
unfortunately, I really can't.  FWIW, we had no need for any XSLT
or other features, all we needed was a simple framework for
generating XML docs, and for parsing XML docs into Smalltalk
object structures which could be fairly straightforwardly navigated.
I do agree that classnames were fairly ugly, and I seem to recall some
ugly/messy stuff in message names and so forth, but it didn't really
get in our way.  Maybe this was because we were using XML to
communicate with another group's Java apps, and so we had Java
to contend with...   ;-)

Quote:
> After 5i the framework has definitely gotten better though it's, as of the
> last time I peeked, not copiously document or fully complete. I expect VW7
> to be quite nice.

> (I ported 5i's parser to squeak, which was the used to build SoapOpera, a
> soap/squeak distribute object framework. Is that a counterexample to the
> coupling claim?)

Probably.
For our needs, inDelv was faster and easier than the VW 5i stuff.  But I
freely admit that context drives usability judgements.

cheers,
Bill



Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:33:23 GMT  
 need an XML parser


 |
 | FWIW, we had no need for any XSLT or other features, all we
 | needed was a simple framework for generating XML docs, and for
 | parsing XML docs into Smalltalk object structures which could
 | be fairly straightforwardly navigated.  [...] I seem to recall
 | some ugly/messy stuff in message names and so forth, but it
 | didn't really get in our way.  Maybe this was because we were
 | using XML to communicate with another group's Java apps, and
 | so we had Java to contend with...  ;-)

Sounds to me like the Java side worked fine, but that there was a
struggle on the Smalltalk side to get a decent XML parser
working.  For example, the OP was trying to find a basic XML
parser and the only solution given was upgrading to a yet more
expensive Smalltalk (with an apparently non-conformant parser) or
to dig one up and port it... then patch it, debug it, rewrite it,
etc.

This thread is a good example of how Java completely dwarfs
Smalltalk on overall productivity -- even though on a
line-by-line local minima scale Smalltalk could be more
productive.  In Java you have many high-quality libraries that
you can just use without even looking at the code once.

No doubt some Smalltalkers will make up some tall tale like, 'and
then after that week of time wasted just getting a simple XML
parser working, we discovered we needed to make a simple change
to it that was only possible by adding a method to Object so we
saved ten months of time all told'.  Yeah, right.

Bill says:
   The main problems I had with the VW parser were a) it was
   entirely undocumented, including no comments in the code and
   b) it was far too tightly coupled to the file-in/file-out
   usage it appears to have been included for.

With Java, just about all of the many XML parsers are documented
well; you should never (not once) have to look at their code.
For example, the NanoXML non-validating XML 1.0 parser is 2/3
documentation and only 1/3 implementation.  Documented Java code
is natural and is expected due to the easy JavaDoc standard
format and that documentation is always visible while coding
(unlike in Smalltalk where you sometimes have to click a special
button just to see the documentation).

If that parser isn't suitable, you could use TinyXML or Aelfred
for small non-validating parsers.  Or drop in one with all the
bells and whistles that maps into a pluggable SAX API like
Apache's Xerces does.  Or use a 'pull' parser.  You can even
parse HTML with Java.

Typically these are all general-purpose and not coupled to a
particular use, like you say VW's is, though some are
particularly suited for XML applications like decoding SOAP
messages.

 | [...] For our needs, inDelv was faster and easier than the VW
 | 5i stuff.  But I freely admit that context drives usability
 | judgements.

That's why it's good to have a choice of the dozens of quality,
documented parsers that you get with Java.  And Java has performed
faster in all overall performance tests I am aware of so if
'faster' is a factor, as you say it was for you, then this is yet
another reason to write XML code in Java.

Jam (address rot13 encoded)



Thu, 20 Jan 2005 03:31:11 GMT  
 
 [ 23 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2]

 Relevant Pages 

1. Validation with XML Schemas with Clarion 5.5 and Microsoft XML Parser 4.0

2. Validating XML-parser using XML Schema?

3. Anyone using CL-XML(a xml parser)?

4. help needed creating xml document with xml.dom

5. Look for XML Parsers for VA/Smalltalk V4.5 and VisualWorks V3.0

6. XML Parser available?

7. Smalltalk XML parser

8. XML parser for Smalltalk

9. XML-Parser for VW252

10. XML.Parser: Unhandled exception: Unrecognized transfer protocol

11. Problem running samples of Indelv's XML Parser

12. XML Parsers

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software