XOM API for Processing XML with Java

["Trimmer, Todd" <todd.trimmer AT trizetto.com>]

John Cowan wrote:

Looking over my list of possible serializers at
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/xom-interest/2002-October/000179.html ,
I think that most or all of them would benefit very little from subclassing
Serializer.

===

I would only agree if TextWriter and its subclasses were public with public
methods. Then I could write my own class that aggregates TextWriter like
Serializer does, and then present my own public methods to help solve the
particular outputting problem I was facing.

The power of TextWriter and the TextWriterFactory is having classes that
takes care of character encodings for you.

So I have to ask why XOM extension writers have to be forced to use the
Serialzer interface to get to this power? My serializers will still take
arguments like Element, Attribute, etc., but won't necessarily write them in
a purely atomic fashion, the way nu.xom.Serializer does.



Todd Trimmer