Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
laziness, impatience, and hubris
 
PerlMonks  

XML::Twig

by mirod (Canon)
on Sep 01, 2000 at 15:17 UTC ( #30701=modulereview: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??

Item Description: A Perlish and efficient module for XML processing

Review Synopsis: review by the author

Full disclosure: I am the author of the module!

Description

XML::Twig is a module designed for efficient processing of XML.

XML::Twig offers tree as well as stream based processing. It allows loading only parts of the document in order to keep memory requirements to a minimum.

XML::Twig is very Perlish: fast, efficient and it offers many different ways to perform a task.

Why use XML::Twig?

  • you need to do complex processing of huge documents, fast
  • XML::Simple is not enough for you but you don't like XSLT and DOM
  • you like the interface

Why NOT use XML::Twig?

  • you can live with the constraints of the DOM API and you want to be able to access XML data bases in the future
  • XML::Simple works for you
  • you don't like the interface

Additional information

You can get more information in the documentation., or in the tutorial, a Quick Reference is also available. Kip Hampton also wrote about it in Using XML::Twig on xml.com.

A list of nodes that include examples of using XML::Twig:

Personal Notes

I use XML::Twig a lot ;--)

It might have some problems with mod_perl, I have not tested it in that environment

Suggestion, bug reports, comments welcome!

Comment on XML::Twig

Back to Reviews

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: modulereview [id://30701]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others surveying the Monastery: (9)
As of 2015-07-29 23:32 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    The top three priorities of my open tasks are (in descending order of likelihood to be worked on) ...









    Results (269 votes), past polls