I agree. I always liked the concept of XML, but in practise it's a nightmare. It obviously has its uses, but man, it can be a tad too verbose. XML is the "language" of web services, so just think that all this flabby XML is clogging up bandwidth. On Saturday 19 Mar 2005 18:11, Dusty Phillips wrote:

Was wondering if anybody here actually *likes* XML. You'll probably be shocked to find out I can't stand the language, since Java programmers seem to be inextricably married to the language. In fact, the link to XML, and not Java itself is what often makes me feel embarrassed to be a Java programmer!

Enter Groovy. Between GPath/XmlSlurp (http://groovy.codehaus.org/GPath) and GroovyMarkup(http://groovy.codehaus.org/GroovyMarkup), I'm finding that its practically painless to interface to XML coming and going. While working on the weather applet yesterday, I found that I could read the weather.com XML file using dot syntax _without having to parse it_. I've also experimented with GroovyMarkup and the XML builder. Again, you can use dot syntax and basic Groovy/Java code to create an XML file, and can also use typical programming language constructs (loops, conditionals) to simplify the task.

Ok, you can probably do similar stuff with Python, Ruby, or any other scripting langugae. If you can't somebody should write a module that does it. ;-)

Being able to ignore/abstract XML is great, but I started thinking it should be possible in some cases to completely discard it. My first example is ant. Those who don't code Java probably still use make (with the antiquated Makefile syntax), or that neat Python distribution tool, or something similar. or dissimilar. In my case, I've been taught to use ant. I hate the XML build files. Groovy allows me to script ant, but I figure I should be able to ignore the ant dependency and write a build toolkit in Java and Groovy. Haven't thought about it much, but I'm thinking each target could be a Groovy closure. The build file is a groovy script that extends a Java (or Groovy) class and manages a bunch of closures/targets in some way.

That will probably be my next project. :-D

Another item is TestNG. This was a framework that I chose to never use because of the XML scripts, its supposed to be the 'next generation' to JUnit tests. (http://www.beust.com/testng/). I have issues with JUnit though. I'm thinking I can do the same thing and overcome TestNG's "limitation" (XML) by writing test framework in groovy. Happily, this has already been done (http://groovy.codehaus.org/Unit+Testing). But I like TestNG's annotation-based configuration, so maybe someday I'll expand the Groovy Unit Testing to include that. It could happen.

I'm also thinking of ways to code XHTML in GroovyMarkup so I never have to look at another angle bracket ever again!

Thoughts? Anybody want to defend XML?

Dusty

_______________________________________________ arch-projects mailing list arch-projects@archlinux.org http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-projects

I also have to put in a vote for JDOM. It made XML useable for me in Java. XML trades bandwidth and overhead for more structure. Sometimes it's the right tool, sometimes it isn't. http://www.jdom.org - P Andy Roberts wrote:

I agree. I always liked the concept of XML, but in practise it's a nightmare. It obviously has its uses, but man, it can be a tad too verbose. XML is the "language" of web services, so just think that all this flabby XML is clogging up bandwidth.