XML was, as has been fretted over before, ugly, hard, and boring to code with. Not any more :). XOM rocks! I'm using it in all my projects now.
Keep it up!
--Patrick Collison
I did some XML Programming during the last month with Java's DOM. this was not funny !! I also played with Ruby's powerful REXML. this is a great API becaue it uses the power of Ruby and it was designed for Ruby and is not a generic interface like DOM. this is way REXML is so popular in the Ruby world.
and this is why I like XOM. for me it fits much better to Java than DOM. I hope that XOM will become for Java what REXML is for Ruby now.
--Markus Jais
Overall, I found XOM to be an amazingly well-organized, intuitive API that's easy to learn and to use. I like how it reinforces good practices and provides insight about XML -- such as the lack of whitespace when XML is produced without a serializer and the identical treatment of text whether it consists of character entities, CDATA sections, or regular characters.
I can't compare it to JDOM, but it's appreciably more pleasant to work with than the Simple API for XML Processing.
--Rogers Cadenhead
XOM has the best API ever.
In my app we churn business objects into XHTML then XSL:FO and finally PDF. XOM makes it super easy to build the XHTML tree. And if I play my cards right, I might be able to turn that XHTML into FO without serializing it to bytes first. Amazing.
XOM makes XML fun again! Get rid of SAX, DOM and hardcoded
"<html>". Get XOM, be happy.
--Jesse Wilson
XOM is the most correct and easiest to use XML tree and streaming API I've come across so far.
--Wolfgang Hoschek on the xom-interest mailing list, Wednesday, 5 Jan 2005 12:11:06
XOM is the most correct and easiest to use XML tree and streaming API I've come across so far.
--Wolfgang Hoschek on the xom-interest mailing list, Wednesday, 5 Jan 2005 12:11:06
i spent yesterday writing the code to render my application config as xml. using xom was like falling off a log. no muss, no fuss, the methods did what i expected, and any confusion was quickly ironed out by a visit to the (copious) examples, or the javadocs. i did run into what might be a bug, but it only showed up because i made a dumb cut-n-paste error (see my other email).
after i get the output tidied up, i'll move on to reading it back in. i'm confident that that will be almost as easy...
--Dirk Bergstrom