XOM API for Processing XML with Java

[Luca Passani <passani AT eunet.no>]

Elliotte Harold wrote:

> if you're concerned about size you wouldn't pretty print anything. If 
> you're concerned about performance you'd use a Serializer rather than 
> toXML.

I use this code to send my XML to the client. The pretty printer is 
useful for my debugging, but useless
in a production environment. If you can suggest ways to do this more 
efficient, please tell me, because I am very interested

   public static void toPrettyXML(Document doc, OutputStream out, 
String encoding) throws Exception {
   Serializer serializer = new Serializer(out, encoding);
   serializer.setIndent(2);
   serializer.setMaxLength(200);
   serializer.setPreserveBaseURI(false);
   serializer.write(doc);
   serializer.flush();
   out.close();
   }

   public static String toPrettyXML(Document doc, String encoding) 
throws Exception {
   ByteArrayOutputStream out = new ByteArrayOutputStream();
   toPrettyXML(doc, out, encoding);
   return out.toString();
   }

> > is there some specific reason why XOM objects cannot be serialized?
>
>
> Of course XOM objects can be serialized. They can be serialized as 
> compact, interoperable, easy-to-use, easy-to-debug, easy-tread, 
> easy-to-understand, robust XML. Now with if you want them serialized 
> in an opaque, brittle, bulging, platform-specific binary format that 
> breaks every time you add a field to a class...Hmm I think I just 
> answered the question :-)
I actually think you did not. I have given you a great use case of why 
serialization should be supported: platforms try to do it no matter if 
you want it or not. So, XOM should allow for that.
I agree that XML is in itself a serialization format, but to me the 
sensible choice is to let developers decide for themselves, rather than 
forcing them to live with restrictions.
....mmm.... I am perplexed here.There seems to be a moralistic tone in 
your approach to this issue...are you born and raised catholic?

Luca