I'm using the QDom classes to process an XML file, I want the attributes to be processed in the order they are defined in the XML file, this is important. However it seems the order of the attributes in the 'QDomNamedNodeMap' is different.
Is there any way to ensure the order is as defined in the XML file?
As far as I know, you can't rely on order of attributes in XML, by specifications. This could be the reason your library read them in a different order that the literal one. Even if you find a way, you should not trust it: what about if someone else generates the XML to feed your program? See here more about the specifications.
Maybe a change in the design can help you: what about nesting some nodes? Nesting nodes sequence is deterministic.
I've written my own classes that read the file and process the nodes and attributes, as per my requirement the attributes are kept in the same order they are presented in the file.
Related
I have a corpus in TEI-XML which uses a 'master' corpus XML document that then contains, via xi:include, thousands of other documents. Each of these documents themselves contain xi:includes to master lists of named entities (people, places, etc linked by xml:ids) . All of this works very well in XSLT (and in my IDE Oxygen for fast encoding).
I am now embarking on building a website using eXist-DB applications. I am rewriting everything directly in Xquery (to replace XSLT), and I have hit upon an unexpected decision. I am used to using xi:includes to traverse the corpus and the various XMLs files. But reading the documentation of eXist DB, it seems that the encouraged practice is to use collections and query them directly, instead of navigating via xi:includes. It also seems that eXist-DB does not support the full implementation of xi:includes anyway and requires some work arounds?
I am looking for guidance as to best practices of eXist-DB/Xquery in this context.
Many thanks in advance.
Correct, eXist's XInclude implementation is focused on output (i.e., serialization) rather than on querying or indexing. As eXist's documentation page on XInclude states:
The XInclude processor is implemented as a filter in between the serializer's output event stream and the receiver... XInclude processing is therefore applied whenever eXist-db serializes an XML fragment, whether it's a document, the result of an XQuery or an XSLT stylesheet.
Thus, if you use XInclude to assemble your corpus and you want to query/traverse this corpus, you could do so by (1) writing a query to read your XInclude and following it like a map to find the component documents, (2) pre-serializing your data into a new document and then querying the resulting document directly, or (3) placing the documents into collections that facilitate the kinds of queries you want to do.
Depending on the size of those thousands of documents, traversing the xinclude when running xqueries tends to be slow and quite memory intensive. In my experience Joe's option 3 is usually the way to go.
Unlike with straight-up xslt, in exist-db you can define indexes. E.g. you have a <listPerson> element as a wrapper for 1000s xincludes going to <person> elements as root of their own document.
If you have defined and index for <person> you can use e.g. ft:query() to query the index directly, irrespective of where in the tree of sub-collections and documents the element is located. This tends to be orders of magnitude faster, compared to traversing the whole document starting at master, and resolving xincludes.
As for validation, you will need to decide if a full validation run of the whole expanded document is really always necessary. This requires some fiddling, but there isn't much general advice I can offer, without seeing the actual files and code.
You can find more information about indexing in exist in the documentation
OK, so here's the background:
We have a third-party piece of software that does a lot of complicated stuff to generate an XML file from a lot of tables based on a wide array of business rules. The software allows you to apply an XSL transformation by supplying an XSLT file as part of its workflow, before continuing on in the process, which is usually an upload to one or more servers, based on more business rules.
Here's the problem:
One of the elements (with more on the way) this application is processing contains RTF text, and needs to be converted into formatted HTML before being uploaded. There are no means of transforming the XML inside the application other than through an XSLT file, and once we output the file, we cannot resume the workflow. My original thought was, "Easy! someone must have written a few XSL transforms for converting RTF to formatted HTML!" Hours of searching later, I must conclude I either suck at searching or it's awfully obscure.
Disclaimers:
I know the software is pretty darned limited; I'm stuck with it.
I know there are a lot of third-party tools to do this; they are not available to me because I would need to run them externally.
I know that this is not a pretty or efficient thing to do with XSLT. Changing that is not an option for me at this point.
If I cannot find a means to do this through pure XSL transforms, I will need to output the files locally, run the extra process, and take the destination routing on through a custom process. I really don't want to do that.
Does anyone have access to an XSL transformation function/ scheme that will allow me to do this natively in the application? Perhaps a series of regular expressions I could use or something?
So it turns out that external scripts can be invoked from the XSLT. It seems I will be using another scripting language to get this to work. I'm a little bummed there was no other answer available.
Well a lot of questions have been made about parsing XML in C++ and so on...
But, instead of a generic problem, mine is very specific.
I am asking for a very efficient XML parser for C++. In particular I have a VERY VERY BIG XML file to parse.
My application must open this file and retrieve data. It must also insert new nodes and save the final result in the file again.
To do this I used, at the beginning, rapidxml, but it requires me to open the file, parse it all (all the content because this lib has no functions to access the file directly without loading the entire tree first), then edit the tree, modify it and store the final tree on the file by overwriting it... It consumes too much resources.
Is there an XML parser that does not require me to load the entire file, but that I can use to insert, quickly, new nodes and retrieve data? Can you please indicate solutions for this problem of mine?
You want a streaming XML parser rather than what is called a DOM parser.
There are two types of streaming parsers: pull and push. A pull parser is good for quickly writing XML parsers that load data into program memory. A push parser is good for writing a program to translate one document to another (which is what you are trying to accomplish). I think, therefore, that a push parser would be best for your problem.
In order to use a push parser, you need to write what is essentially an event handler for parsing events. By "parsing event", I mean events like "start tag reached", "end tag reached", "text found", "attribute parsed", etc.
I suggest that as you read in the document, you write out the transformed document to a separate, temporary file. Thus, your XML parsing event handlers will need to be written so that they are stateful and write out the XML of the translated document incrementally.
Three excellent push parser libraries for C++ include Expat, Xerces-C++, and libxml2.
Search for "SAX parser". They are mostly tokenizers, i.e. they emit tag by tag without building a tree.
SAX parsers are faster than DOM parsers because DOM parsers read the entire file into memory before building an in-memory representation of the XML document, whereas a SAX parser behaves like an event listener and builds the document as it reads in the file. Go here for an explanation.
As you mentioned Xerces is a good C++ SAX parser.
I would recommend looking into ways of breaking the XML document into smaller XML documents as that seems to be part of your problem.
Okay, here is one off the beaten track, I looked at this, but haven't really used it myself, it's called asmxml. These boys claim performance bar none, downside, you need x86 assembler.
If you really seek high performance XML stream parser then libhpxml is likely the right thing for you.
I’m convinced that no XML library exists that allows you to modify a file without loading it first. This simply isn’t possible because files don’t work that way: you cannot insert (or remove) in the middle of a file. You can only overwrite a block of identical size, or append at the end. But your request would require to append or remove in the middle of the file.
Reading only parts of an XML file may be possible. But writing … no way.
Go for template libraries as much as possible, like Boost::property_tree or Boost::XMLParser or POCO::XML and Folly has XML Parser in it.
Avoid old C libraries, it all old code designs.
someone say QtXML module is high performance for huge XML files.
(Not sure if this should be CW or not, you're welcome to comment if you think it should be).
At my workplace, we have many many different file formats for all kinds of purposes. Most, if not all, of these file formats are just written in plain text, with no consistency. I'm only a student working part-time, and I have no experience with using xml in production, but it seems to me that using xml would improve productivity, as we often need to parse, check and compare these outputs.
So my questions are: given that I can only control one small application and its output (only - the inputs are formats that are used in other applications as well), is it worth trying to change the output to be xml-based? If so, what are the best known ways to do that in C++ (i.e., xml parsers/writers, etc.)? Also, should I also provide a plain-text output to make it easy for the users (which are also programmers) to get used to xml? Should I provide a script to translate xml-plaintext? What are your experiences with this subject?
Thanks.
Don't just use XML because it's XML.
Use XML because:
other applications (that only accept XML) are going to read your output
you have an hierarchical data structure that lends itself perfectly for XML
you want to transform the data to other formats using XSL (e.g. to HTML)
EDIT:
A nice personal experience:
Customer: your application MUST be able to read XML.
Me: Er, OK, I will adapt my application so it can read XML.
Same customer (a few days later): your application MUST be able to read fixed width files, because we just realized our mainframe cannot generate XML.
Amir, to parse an XML you can use TinyXML which is incredibly easy to use and start with. Check its documentation for a quick brief, and read carefully the "what it does not do" clause. Been using it for reading and all I can say is that this tiny library does the job, very well.
As for writing - if your XML files aren't complex you might build them manually with a string object. "Aren't complex" for me means that you're only going to store text at most.
For more complex XML reading/writing you better check Xerces which is heavier than TinyXML. I haven't used it yet I've seen it in production and it does deliver it.
You can try using the boost::property_tree class.
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_43_0/doc/html/property_tree.html
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_43_0/doc/html/boost_propertytree/tutorial.html
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_43_0/doc/html/boost_propertytree/parsers.html#boost_propertytree.parsers.xml_parser
It's pretty easy to use, but the page does warn that it doesn't support the XML format completely. If you do use this though, it gives you the freedom to easily use XML, INI, JSON, or INFO files without changing more than just the read_xml line.
If you want that ability though, you should avoid xml attributes. To use an attribute, you have to look at the key , which won't transfer between filetypes (although you can manually create your own subnodes).
Although using TinyXML is probably better. I've seen it used before in a couple of projects I've worked on, but don't have any experience with it.
Another approach to handling XML in your application is to use a data binding tool, such as CodeSynthesis XSD. Such a tool will generate C++ classes that hide all the gory details of parsing/serializing XML -- all that you see are objects corresponding to your XML vocabulary and functions that you can call to get/set the data, for example:
Person p = person ("person.xml");
cout << p.name ();
p.name ("John");
p.age (30);
ofstream ofs ("person.xml");
person (ofs, p);
Here's what previous SO threads have said on the topic. Please add others you know of that are relevant:
What is the best open XML parser for C++?
What is XML good for and when should i be using it?
What are good alternative data formats to XML?
BTW, before you decide on an XML parser, you may want to make sure that it will actually be able to parse all XML documents instead of just the "simple" ones, as discussed in this article:
Are you using a real XML parser?
I have an XML parser that crashes on incomplete XML data. So XML data fed to it could be one of the following:
<one><two>twocontent</two</one>
<a/><b/> ( the parser treats it as two root elements )
Element attributes are also handled ( though not shown above ).
Now, the problem is when I read data from socket I get data in fragments. For example:
<one>one
content</two>
</one>
Thus, before sending the XML to the parser I have to construct a valid XML and send it.
What programming construct ( like iteration, recursion etc ) would be the best fit for this kind of scenario.
I am programming in C++.
Please help.
Short answer: You're doing it wrong.
Your question confuses two separate issues:
Parsing of data that is not well-formed XML at all, i.e. so-called tag soup.
Example: Files generated by programmers who do not understand XML or have lousy coding practices.
It is not unfair to say: A file that is not well-formed XML is not an XML document at all. Every correct XML parser will reject it. Ideally you would work to correct the source of this data and make sure that proper XML is generated instead.
Alternatively, use a tag soup parser, i.e. a parser that does error correction.
Useful tag soup parsers are often actually HTML parsers. tidy has already been pointed out in another answer.
Make certain that you understand what correction steps such a parser actually performs, since there is no universal approach that could fix XML. Tidy in particular is very aggressive at "repairing" the data, more aggressive than real browsers and the HTML 5 spec, for example.
XML parsing from a socket, where data arrives chunk-by-chunk in a stream. In this situation, the XML document might be viewed as "infinite", with chunks being processed as the appear, long before a final end tag for the root element has been seen.
Example: XMPP is a protocol that works like this.
The solution is to use a pull-based parser, for example the XMLTextReader API in libxml2.
If a tree-based data structure for the XML child elements being parser is required, you can build a tree structure for each such element that is being read, just not for the entire document.
What is feeding you the XML from the other end of the socket connection? It doesn't make sense that you should be missing stuff, as you illustrate, just because you receive it from a socket.
If the socket is using TCP (or a custom protocol with similar properties), you should not be missing parts of your XML. Thus, you should be able to just buffer it all until the other end signals "end of document", and then feed it to your picky XML parser.
If you are using UDP or some other "lossy" protocol, you need to reconsider, since it's obviously not possible to correctly transfer a large XML document over a channel that randomly drops pieces.
Because the XML structure is a hierarchic structure (a tree) a recursion would be the best way to approach this.
You can call the recursion on each child and fix the missing XML identifiers.
Basically, you'll be doing the same thing a DOM object parser would do, only you'll parse the file in order to fix it's structure.
One thing though, it seems to me as if in this method you are going to re-write the XML parser. Isn't it a waist of time?
Maybe it's better to find a way for the XML to arrive in the right structure rather than trying to fix it.
Are there multiple writers? Why isn't your parser validating the XML?
Use a tree, where every node represents an element and carries with it a dirty bit. The first occurrence of the node marks it as dirty i.e. you are expecting a closing tag, unless of course the node is of the form <a/>. Also, the first element, you encounter is the root.
When you hit a dirty node, keep pushing nodes in a stack, until you hit the closing tag, when you pop the contents.
In your example, how are you going to figure out exactly where in the content to put the opening <two> tag once you have detected it is missing? This is, as they say, non-trivial.