in reply to Re: XML documentation formatting and transformations
in thread XML documentation formatting and transformations

On Win32, you say you use Win32::OLE->new('msxml.DOMdocument');.

Why do you use that instead of the various Perl modules? My first impression, formed by experience with DBI vs. ODB etc. and using Word and VSS from Perl, is that the OLE interface is clunky compared to a module designed with Perl in mind.

So, does msxml do something that the CPAN modules don't? Or is there some specific advantage to using it?

—John

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: XML documentation formatting and transformations
by alien_life_form (Pilgrim) on Nov 05, 2001 at 05:57 UTC
    Greetings.

    I should perhaps have told that my XML parsing needs do not have a very high byte count - so I am not very concerned about efficiency at this point.

    So the main reason for using the msxml COM engine is the same as for climbing mount Everest: it's there.

    I do not need to install anything ,and I get an alternate drop-inimplementation from Xerces COM interface (that I do have to install - check apache.org's site for xerces-c, not the like named java implementation).

    I could (but have not done it) get the native perl/xerces interface, whose performance should be comparable to xerces.

    As for perl's XML:: hierarchy, I do not know. I was never able to get a clean windoze install, from CPAN or otherwise though things hav eprobably improved since my last attempt. I heard people that went through it and were much less then awed by the performance level. (And truly, a large DOM tree made entirely of perl objects must be an unwieldy beast..)

    Cheers,
    alf
    --<br: You can't have everything: where would you put it?

      Yea, it was an effort to install XML::Twig, since it doesn't have a PPM. I posted a new thread on that and windows installing in general.

      What good is half a gigabyte of RAM if not to support the occasional unwieldly beast <g>. I'll keep an eye on the performance issue. I can process a twig at a time on input, and I think I can render the twig into a text string and store it that way, even though I have to wait 'till I have them all so I can print the final file in sorted order. But that doesn't mean I have to keep a fully-parsed representation around!

      Thanks,

      —John