Message148570
| Author |
scoder |
| Recipients |
docs@python, eric.araujo, ezio.melotti, fdrake, loewis, pitrou, scoder |
| Date |
2011年11月29日.14:12:24 |
| SpamBayes Score |
8.3374175e-07 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<1322575945.15.0.823673439388.issue11379@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
I don't think "FUD" is a suitable term for the rather minidom-friendly wording in my last proposal. Seriously, minidom is widely known for being extremely slow and extremely memory hungry. And that is backed by basically any benchmark that has ever been done on the subject. If 4DOM, which Martin cites, is really worse in terms of performance (I never used it), it must truly be the only existing species of that kind.
Still, here's a cleaned up version of Fred's proposal that I could live with:
"""
:mod:`xml.dom.minidom` --- Pure Python DOM implementation
:mod:`xml.dom.minidom` is an implementation of the Document Object Model interface. The API is (intentionally) slightly simpler than the full W3C DOM, but the implementation has a significantly higher memory footprint than the XML tree library in :mod:`xml.etree.ElementTree`.
""" |
|