From: James Britt <jamesUNDERBARb@...>
Date: 2003-10-04T03:38:53+09:00
Subject: Re: xml + ruby

Zach Dennis wrote:
> James,
> 
> Are the people on this thread suffering from a case
> of programmatic idealism, underuse or misuse of rexml
> or is rexml lacking some of the things mentioned on
> this thread?

I have no idea from what anybody might be suffering, idealistic or 
otherwise.  I believe, though, that many of the topics discussed in this 
thread have been discussed before, either on ruby-talk or the rexml list 
or on the RubyGarden XmlInRuby page.

This by no means precludes raising them again, but any participants 
should at least be familiar with earlier threads.

> 
> I've been humming a pretty tune, but in all honesty
> I have hardly used rexml as of yet, since this is
> my first weeks arrival into Ruby. So please point
> me and others in the right direction, then maybe this 
> thread can be redirected to point to what maybe
> rexml is lacking and how to better improve on it.

What, if anything, rexml lacks is a matter of opinion.  And that opinion 
will be colored by one's needs and how much time one has spent with 
Ruby, because Rexml might be best described as a Ruby Way XML API.

Faulting Rexml may be misplaced as well.  There well may be a need for 
other XML APIS in Ruby, but adding them to either Rexml or the core 
language is a whole other matter.

My impression is that a majority of folks on this list will use XML 
under certain circumstances, but view it as a means to an end.  They do 
not care much for the W3C XML DOM, nor view XPath as an intrinsically 
appealing data-access API.  There is a preference to be able to 
manipulate XML source data using a Ruby interface.  For most people 
Rexml fits the bill quite well.

Whether this is true for you or anyone else requires you spend a bit of 
time hacking around with it.  If you approach it with a W3C DOM mindset 
you may be disappointed (though, then again, you be pleasantly 
surprised).  If you approach it as just another Ruby API you may find it 
quite natural.

If you then decide that Rexml is still lacking in some way, join the 
Rexml mailing list and offer some constructive criticism. It's been kind 
of slow there, so new blood is quite welcome.  On the other hand, if, 
after working with Rexml and Ruby for a bit, you still think the core 
language lacks something, bring it up here.

Incidently, Rexml is not the only XML lib for Ruby. While I've sadly let 
the site decay, www.rubyxml.com still  has a decent list of Ruby XML 
information.  (And all this might be enough to motivate me to extend the 
day to 26 hours and fix up the site.)


James

> 
> -Zach