From: Julian Fitzell Date: 2001-11-10T02:15:24+09:00 Subject: [ruby-talk:24777] Re: ruby and webservices Personnally, as I recall, my major problem with XMLParser was that you couldn't have more than one parser working at once. This was a problem, for example, when I was trying to read in an RSS feed and send it out an XML stream on a socket (yes, this is Jabber :). I also find the interface of expat difficult to use and would rather have one less c library dependency for the main distribution so I would vote for one of the Ruby implementations. I haven't had a chance to write anything in REXML yet, though so though I suspect I will prefer it I can't say for sure. It would still be worth having the XMLParser around for people who need performance, but it doesn't fit in well with the Ruby paradigm. Plus, it's difficult to modify... the advantage of it being written in Ruby is that we can get in there and modify it. Julian On 09/11/2001 at 7:27 PM Markus Jais wrote: >In article , "Rich >Kilmer" wrote: > >> Actually...its me. >> >> I've been interacting with these guys on their mail list about what Ruby >> supports, etc. I just left the O'Reilly P2P & Web Services conference >> here in Washington DC. Paul Prescod had a tutorial this afternoon for >> this API. I missed the first part, but was able to sit in the second >> half and chat with him. This API is for consuming WSDL based Web >> services and (not yet) serving them. That is an additional goal I have >> (and Paul does as well). I have some prototype code for WSDL creation, >> but we need the consumption stuff done first anyway. >> >> I was waiting for them to finish this API to begin working on it. My >> only issue now is which XML library to use, because its then going to be >> a requirement. >> >> 1) NQXML >> 2) REXML >> 3) XMLParser (expat) >> >> Thoughts on this? XMLRPC4R and SOAP4R (I think) use NQXML right now, but >> REXML did not exist then (and is moving to support much more of the >> needed XML standards). SOAP4R is going to be critical because its >> necessary for calling the SOAP methods defined by the WSDL files that >> are parsed using SWSAPI. > >I think the XMLParser maybe has the advantage of being faster >(and this might often be an issue. I am trying to do some xml programming >at work und here performance is the main reason. I'd really like to use >ruby or python or at least java, but unfortunately I have to stick to >C or C++ as it seems) > >Rexml has the coolest API in my opinion and maybe the easiest >but I do not know how it's performance is compares to XMLParser > >it is also important how much of the standards are implement >and I think Rexml is on the right way here. > >but I am not an export. Surely the author's of Rexml, XMLParser and NQXML >can give better recommendations. > >markus f