homepage

The short doc for 19.6. xml.dom.pulldom has lots of ...s that appear to indicate missing text. If so, this issue is a flag for a future project for someone who knows what to fill in.
If nothing is missing and the section is intended to be understood in its cryptic state, it should say so.

The xml.dom.pulldom module doesn't have docstrings so I guess that when the doc page has been created only the names of the classes/method have been listed.

I have a patch that provides full documentation for pulldom, and adds sensible docstrings to the pulldom module. I have unfortunately created the patch on the py3k branch -- please let me know what I should do regarding porting these changes to Python 2.7.

Working off py3k is the thing to do. If the patch is trivial to apply to the other branches, the committer will probably use svnmerge to do it, else it may be useful to adapt your patch to 2.7. I’d recommend waiting for feedback before doing this.

Thank you for the patch. I can now imagine using the module. Comments:
"+ :synopsis: Iterative XML parsing with DOM nodes."
seem a bit too terse and confusing. Would
"+ :synopsis: Iterative parsing of XML to event, DOM node pairs, with option subtree creation."
be accurate?
-.. class:: PullDOM(documentFactory=None)
- :class:`xml.sax.handler.ContentHandler` implementation that ...
I was expecting this to be filled out with the methods of PullDOM. But you new docstring
"+ """A ContentHandler that is used internally by :class:`DOMEventStream` to
+ provide an iterator over the nodes in an XML stream. This class would not
+ normally be used directly - its main responsibility is to produce DOM
+ nodes from SAX events."
suggests that it is sufficiently private that it should not be documented at all, and that anyone who wanted to use it directly should either try help(pullDom) or read the code. Correct?
I am not sure of the standard for when to document or not helper classes, so I will leave this question to a doc person.
"\ No newline at end of file"
Is this a message from diff to add one?
--------------
The py3k branch is now trunk. Most applicable patches should be developed on that branch and then possibly backported. The current pullDOM page is useless, so this should be backported. Since the docs appear to have been untouched since the beginning, the manual page, at least, should apply directly.
To go into 2.6.6, the final 2.6 bugfix release, a patch needs be applied by the end of July. So consider my first and third comments first and a possible minor update. I would recommend that for commit/review for at least 2.6.

Terry, thanks for the feedback!
I have added a patch, replacing the previous one, which deals with your points 1 and 3 in the following ways:
1. I have used (an edited form of) your synopsis - I've removed the details of exactly what is returned from the iterator, as I thought it made the sentence structure slightly awkward - hope you don't mind. I've moved the old synopsis to the heading, which is where I intended it to be anyway.
3. I added the newline - I don't think this is really a problem, but neither is the fix :)
Regarding point 2: I agree with you - I struggled with whether to include references to these classes, eventually settling for what you see. I suppose they could be re-used for converting SAX events to DOM nodes, so it could be useful to know they are there.
SAX2DOM isn't even used internally, so is technically part of the module's public interface, but with such brittle behaviour that I think it should really be removed. It automatically adds children to their parent when they are parsed -- but the children will only be parsed if the buffer is large enough. If it isn't then you can get incorrectly empty or even partial subtrees.

Looks like someone else noticed the problem, but did not notice that there was an existing issue with a patch :(.
Sorry about that, Mark. Thanks very much for working on this, and I'm very sorry it got lost. Hopefully Eli will review your patch and see if there is anything to adopt from it to add to the stuff he already checked in on issue 14202.

Yes, sorry for missing this. I've placed a note in issue #14202 to review this. Mark, it would be great if you could prepare a fresh patch vs. 3.3 default with your additions. Let's continue discussion in #14202 - it's still open.