Simplified DOM idiom for building XML - revisited

Discussion in 'XML' started by Steve Jorgensen, Aug 26, 2005.

  1. A while ago, I posted a 1/2 formed idea for what was probably an
    overcomplicated scheme for improving how we create content using the DOM API.
    Since then, I've been refactoring some real-world code that builds content
    with DOM, and have come up with a much simpler, more practical idea that I've
    had success in implementing.

    The problem in a nutshell is that, to build a tree or fragment in the DOM,
    it's just about impossible to arrange the code to be structured much like the
    XML being generated. Furthermore, the size of the code and the degree of
    coupling with the DOM is outrageuos. You have to invoke a method of the
    document object to create each new node, you have to invoke an appendChild
    method of each node to add content to it, and you have to pass a namespace
    argument to each createNode call if you want it to have a namespace URI, even
    if they're all the same. Finally, the syntax for creating and appending
    attribute nodes is totally nuts, and nothing like adding child elements.

    Of course, you can solve all these problems with an appropriate wrapper class
    or set of wrapper classes, but we're each inventing our own wrappers to do
    this, each solving the problems described above with varying degrees of
    success.

    The solution I came up with, I think is really nice, and involves using the
    native capabilities of most languages to build nested arrays in-line along
    with some very trivial parsing to allow the use of compact node definition
    strings (syntax roughly similar to XPath). The inability of nested arrays to
    represent children of sepcific nodes is solved simply by treating any nested
    array as the set of children for the preceeding node in the array.

    Here's a hypothetical example (similar to some real, working code) in VB...

    DOMWrap.DOM.appendChild DOMWrap.createFragment( _
    Array("Invoice", Array(
    "@date=", Date, _
    "Customer", Array( _
    "@name=", CustName),
    "Body",
    InvoiceLines()))), _
    "uri:fooinc.com:invoice"

    In the array, each element may be a node definition string, a node object, or
    a fragment. A node definition may end with a dangling = sign, in which case,
    the next array item supplies the text content for the node. Notice that the
    code above has a structure much like the XML it is generating, and is vastly
    more compact and easy to read than if it were written as discrete createNode
    and appendChild calls. Also notice that, if all the nodes being created from
    string definitions are in the same namespace, I only have to pass a single
    namespaceURI argument.

    So - my suggestion is to create this simple wrapper in many languages (at
    least Java, C#, VB, Perl, and Python), put it on SourceForge, and try to get
    people to use it as a de facto standard, so no one has to reinvent this wheel
    again.

    Would anyone besides me be interested in having me do that?

    - Steve J.
     
    Steve Jorgensen, Aug 26, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Steve Jorgensen

    Mukul Gandhi Guest

    I personally feel, DOM is a nice API. I think, it was natural outcome
    of the hierarchial nature of XML. By using arrays, you are introducing
    a linear storage to map to a hierarchical object(i.e. XML) which is
    hard to grasp..

    Regards,
    Mukul
     
    Mukul Gandhi, Aug 26, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On 26 Aug 2005 07:35:45 -0700, "Mukul Gandhi" <> wrote:

    >I personally feel, DOM is a nice API. I think, it was natural outcome
    >of the hierarchial nature of XML. By using arrays, you are introducing
    >a linear storage to map to a hierarchical object(i.e. XML) which is
    >hard to grasp..
    >
    >Regards,
    >Mukul


    I'll start my reply by acknowledging that it's silly to ask for feedback, then
    argue with it, but I'm human, and therefore silly.

    I agree that the DOM has its advantages, or I'd never have bothered with it
    enough to get tired of its verboseness. Yes, it's great that DOM allows such
    fine control over nodes and abstracts away much of how they actually appear in
    XML text. That does not mean, however, that I always want to use something
    like 8 verbose procedure calls to build a minor 3-node fragment. Furthermore,
    to decipher that code later takes a lot of effort, but I value writing code
    that's obvious just looking at it, so the unwrapped DOM raises some real
    issues for me. It's the unwrapped DOM that seems to me to be hard to grasp
    for some parts of a task.

    The wrapper I propose leaves the whole DOM API in place to use as much as you
    like, and adds the ability to easily toss together simple fragments as needed.
    Good uses for this include building the high-level skeleton of a document and
    building skeletons of smallish fragments that will have details added to them,
    and then be added as children somewhere in the main document skeleton. In
    short, I have some control over the granularity of the code rather than being
    stuck at the finest granularity for every single node.
     
    Steve Jorgensen, Aug 27, 2005
    #3
  4. Steve Jorgensen

    Mukul Gandhi Guest

    your wrote:
    >That does not mean, however, that I always want to use something
    >like 8 verbose procedure calls to build a minor 3-node fragment.


    sorry, but I don't mind writing tons of code if I am writing in a
    standard language(that too published by W3C)..

    certainly if people read your approach, they will find merit in it.. I
    did'nt say I did'nt like this proposal :)

    Regards,
    Mukul
     
    Mukul Gandhi, Aug 27, 2005
    #4
  5. Steve Jorgensen

    Soren Kuula Guest

    Steve Jorgensen wrote:

    > Would anyone besides me be interested in having me do that?


    Well, have you ever looked at the ML language? Defining types and
    constructing object structures of them is a breeze.

    Soren
     
    Soren Kuula, Aug 28, 2005
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Stephan Kurpjuweit

    Simplified Docbook as XML schema?

    Stephan Kurpjuweit, Apr 15, 2005, in forum: XML
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    869
    s. caillibotte
    Apr 17, 2005
  2. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    583
  3. keith

    container idiom revisited

    keith, Apr 13, 2010, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    304
    Kai-Uwe Bux
    Apr 15, 2010
  4. John-Mason P. Shackelford

    Array Building idiom

    John-Mason P. Shackelford, Aug 10, 2006, in forum: Ruby
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    118
    Martin DeMello
    Aug 10, 2006
  5. Erik Veenstra
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    124
Loading...

Share This Page