XOM API for Processing XML with Java

[Wolfgang Hoschek <whoschek AT lbl.gov>]

> Are there other commiters to XOM than ERH? (especially after the  
> latest saxon post to his blog (which I agree with!))
>
> best,
> -Rob

The Saxon code base may not win beauty contests but IMO it's by far  
the most standards compliant, mature and efficient product in that  
area. In practise, it get's the job done better than anything else  
out there. In a crowded place, there's rather limited value in (re) 
implementing some spec for the 100th time, this time just a little  
better or cleaner. Saxon is a race horse wrt. evolution and  
development approach, not a turtle for dummies. Wrt. the ill-advised  
unit test craze: Writing unit tests with exhaustive coverage for  
every line of code may work well for small toys or projects with many  
committers, but would be a complete waste of time for the Saxon one  
man show. While early interactive experimental tests and automated  
integration tests (of which Saxon has a gazillion) do have a useful  
cost/benefit ratio, fine grained 100% unit test coverage mania is ill  
advised. It would take *years* to write and maintain such tests,  
while interesting development and evolution would almost completely  
stagnate. Saxon is solid and at the same time far ahead leading the  
pack, getting the priorities right. Just my take.

P.S.:
Some of us learned programming on historic batch mainfraimes where a  
submitted hello world job would take one hour to complete, only to  
spit out a laconic "syntax error" on some printer in the computer  
center on the other side of campus. For most folks, this learning  
experience led to thinking hard about a program before doing  
anything, a style of programming that produces programs that are  
mostly bug free to begin with. Adding tests as a particular need  
arises seems sensible, thinking before testing is better, and  
refraining from mostly clueless arguments is best. Ah well, enjoy...

Wolfgang.