XOM API for Processing XML with Java

[Steve Loughran <steve.loughran AT gmail.com>]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 16:19:28 -0500, Elliotte Harold
<elharo AT metalab.unc.edu> wrote:
> Wolfgang Hoschek wrote:
> 
> > Yes, to support 0.01% of use cases, we pay the prize of having an ugly
> > conceptual misfit, no matter how we juggle it.
> 
> Namespaces are an ugly conceptual misfit, no matter how you approach
> them. Possibly I could avoid the problems by going back to the beginning
> and working namespaces into the Element class, so it use Namespace
> objects instead of strings, and modeling namespaces in scope like XPath
> does rather than namespaces declared like XOM does. But the memory cost
> still worries me. Much worse is the question of how to handle namespaces
> in scope as elements are moved around, disconnected from their parents,
> and inserted into new documents. I thought about this a couple of years
> ago, and I didn't know how to handle it then and I don't know how to
> handle it now. I tend to doubt there is a good way to handle namespaces
> that will fit all use cases well. :-(
> 

I hear bad things about the performance impact of integrating
namespace support into things, things like DOM and XPath. Has anyone
some quantified numbers or should I just make them up?