A few opinions

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

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

I just started to use XOM in my beanshell scripts and have found it intuitive and very simple to use. It produces code that is very clear at a higher level of abstraction than I usually am forced to work.

--Gary Furash

Previous | Next | Top | Cafe con Leche

Copyright 2004, 2005 Elliotte Rusty Harold
Last Modified February 10, 2005