<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Daniel Gazineu - Latest Comments</title><link>http://danielgazineu.disqus.com/</link><description></description><atom:link href="https://danielgazineu.disqus.com/comments.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Apr 2010 18:05:45 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Design Pattern for processing a huge XML file: The Solution</title><link>http://danielgazineu.com/blog/2010/04/27/design-pattern-for-processing-a-huge-xml-file-the-solution/#comment-89537987</link><description>&lt;p&gt;You may want to give vtd-xml a look, it is wellsuited for huge XML (with xpath support)&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://vtd-xml.sf.net" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://vtd-xml.sf.net"&gt;http://vtd-xml.sf.net&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">anon</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 27 Apr 2010 18:05:45 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Design Pattern for processing a huge XML file: The Problem</title><link>http://danielgazineu.com/blog/2010/04/14/design-pattern-for-processing-a-huge-xml-file-the-problem/#comment-89537976</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Perhaps the performance does not improve with the use of StAX, but its API seems to be easier to use.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Paulo Jerônimo</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 15 Apr 2010 06:37:34 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Design Pattern for processing a huge XML file: The Problem</title><link>http://danielgazineu.com/blog/2010/04/14/design-pattern-for-processing-a-huge-xml-file-the-problem/#comment-89537975</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I would also consider and test a solution to this problem using the StAX. Try and tell me if performance improves or not ;-)&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Paulo Jerônimo</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 15 Apr 2010 06:05:04 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: A DSL for validations using fluent interfaces</title><link>http://danielgazineu.com/blog/2009/08/09/a-dsl-for-validations-using-fluent-interfaces/#comment-89537922</link><description>&lt;p&gt;@Bob my first idea for this API was to use it to validate method parameters in each level of my applicatiosn. But I think it can also be used to validate object states and other domain specific stuffs.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Daniel Gazineu</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 14:57:07 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: A DSL for validations using fluent interfaces</title><link>http://danielgazineu.com/blog/2009/08/09/a-dsl-for-validations-using-fluent-interfaces/#comment-89537921</link><description>&lt;p&gt;This is very interesting. I've built a validation framework for ColdFusion, the details of which can be found at &lt;a href="http://www.validatethis.org" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="www.validatethis.org"&gt;www.validatethis.org&lt;/a&gt;, and I have toyed with the idea of a fluent interface.  Right now all the validation rules are defined in xml files.  Where in your model would you put the calls to your fluent interface?&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Bob Silverberg</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 13:56:58 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>