Why is there no functional xml?
Peter Otten
__peter__ at web.de
Tue Jan 23 10:03:31 EST 2018
Rustom Mody wrote:
> On Sunday, January 21, 2018 at 4:51:34 PM UTC+5:30, Peter Otten wrote:
>> Personally I'd probably avoid the extra layer and write a function that
>> directly maps dataclasses or database records to xml using the
>> conventional elementtree API.
>
> Would appreciate your thoughts/comments Peter!
>
> I find that you can get 'E' from lxml.objectify as well as lxml.builder
> builder seems better in that its at least sparsely documented
> objectify seems to have almost nothing beyond the original David Mertz'
> docs
>
> builder.E seems to do what objectify.E does modulo namespaces
>
> builder.E and objectify.E produce types that are different and look
> backwards (at least to me — Elementbase is less base than _Element)
>
> You seem to have some reservation against objectify, preferring the
> default Element — I'd like to know what
While I don't have any actual experience with it, my gut feeling is that it
simplifies something that is superfluous to begin with.
> Insofar as builder seems to produce the same type as Element unlike
> objectify which seems to be producing a grandchild type, do you have the
> same reservations against builder.E?
If I understand you correctly you are talking about implementation details.
Unfortunately I cannot comment on these -- I really just remembered
objectify because of the catchy name...
More information about the Python-list
mailing list