Develop Reference

RTF Java Parser

here is my issue.
I need to read an RTF document and render to a webpage (some sort of google docs) but these documents are templates, the idea, is that user can only edit certain text and not the text that is marked to be "template logic".
So far I've seen a bunch of RTF libraries that performs only rendering but wont let you access an object that can be iterated dynamically to go over the structure of the RTF document.
My idea is to determine what can be editable and what can not, put all that info (images, text, tables, headers, footers) into a json and send it to my JS client.
Maybe this is a crazy idea, any suggestions?

When I read "template", I think "Velocity". I wonder if you can solve this by separating template from dynamic data. I wonder if you can solve this by letting users modify dynamic data and only marry it with the static, unedited template at the last minute.

It's possible that Docmosis can help because it lets you use documents and templates and you can extract from Docmosis an "analysis" of the template (eg a list of fields). It's hard to be sure if it will fit your purpose though from your description. Please note I work for the company that produces Docmosis.

Best file format regarding standard string and integer data?

For my project, I need to store info about protocols (the data sent (most likely integers) and in the order it's sent) and info that might be formatted something like this:
'ID' 'STRING' 'ADDITIONAL INTEGER DATA'
This info will be read by a Java program and stored in memory for processing, but I don't know what would be the most sensible format to store this data in?
EDIT: Here's some extra information:
1)I will be using this data in a game server.
2)Since it is a game server, speed is not the primary concern, since this data will primary be read and utilized during startup, which shouldn't occur very often.
3)Memory consumption I would like to keep at a minimum, however.
4)The second data "example" will be used as a "dictionary" to look up names of specific in-game items, their stats and other integer data (and therefore might become very large, unlike the first data containing the protocol information, where each file will only note small protocol bites, like a login protocol for instance).
5)And yes, I would like the data to be "human-editable".
EDIT 2: Here's the choices that I've made:
JSON - For the protocol descriptions
CSV - For the dictionaries

There are many factors that could come to weigh--here are things that might help you figure this out:
1) Speed/memory usage: If the data needs to load very quickly or is very large, you'll probably want to consider rolling your own binary format.
2) Portability/compatibility: Balanced against #1 is the consideration that you might want to use the data elsewhere, with programs that won't read a custom binary format. In this case, your heavy hitters are probably going to be CSV, dBase, XML, and my personal favorite, JSON.
3) Simplicity: Delimited formats like CSV are easy to read, write, and edit by hand. Either use double-quoting with proper escaping or choose a delimiter that will not appear in the data.
If you could post more info about your situation and how important these factors are, we might be able to guide you further.

How about XML, JSON or CSV ?

I've written a similar protocol-specification using XML. (Available here.)
I think it is a good match, since it captures the hierarchal nature of specifying messages / network packages / fields etc. Order of fields are well defined and so on.
I even wrote a code-generator that generated the message sending / receiving classes with methods for each message type in XSLT.
The only drawback as I see it is the verbosity. If you have a really simple structure of the specification, I would suggest you use some simple home-brewed format and write a parser for it using a parser-generator of your choice.

In addition to the formats suggested by others here (CSV, XML, JSON, etc.) you might consider storing the info in a Java properties file. (See the java.util.Properties class.) The code is already there for you, so all you have to figure out is the properties names (or name prefixes) you want to use.
The Properties class also provides for storing/loading properties in a simple XML format.

Java properties: .properties files vs xml?

I'm a newbie when it comes to properties, and I read that XML is the preferred way to store these. I noticed however, that writing a regular .properties file in the style of
foo=bar
fu=baz
also works. This would mean a lot less typing (and maybe easier to read and more efficient as well). So what are the benefits of using an XML file?

In XML you can store more complex (e.g. hierarchical) data than in a properties file. So it depends on your usecase. If you just want to store a small number of direct properties a properties file is easier to handle (though the Java properties class can read XML based properties, too).
It would make sense to keep your configuration interface as generic as possible anyway, so you have no problem to switch to another representation ( e.g. by using Apache Commons Configuration ) if you need to.

The biggest benefit to using an XML file is that XML declares its encoding, while .properties does not.
If you are translating these properties files to N languages, it is possible that these files could come back in N different encodings. And if you're not careful, you or someone else could irreversibly corrupt the character encodings.

If you have a lot of repeating data, it can be simpler to process
<connections>
<connection>this</connection>
<connection>that</connection>
<connection>the other</connection>
</connections>
than it is to process
connection1=this
connection2=that
connection3=the other
especially if you are expecting to have to store a lot of data, or it must be stored in a definite hierarchy
If you are just storing a few scalar values though, I'd go for the simple Properties approach every time

If you have both hierarchical data & duplicate namespaces, then use XML.
1) To emulate just a hierarchical structure in a properties file, simply use dot notation:
a.b=The Joker
a.b.c=Batgirl
a.b=Batman
a.b=Superman
a.b.c=Supergirl
So, complex (hierarchical) data representation is *not a reason to use xml.
2) For just repeating data, we can use a 3rd party library like ini4j to peg explicitly in java a count identifier on an implicit quantifier in the properties file itself.
a.b=The Joker
a.b=Batgirl
a.b=Batman
is translated to (in the background)
a.b1=The Joker
a.b2=Batgirl
a.b3=Batman
However, numerating same name properties still doesn't maintain the specific parent-child relationships. ie. how do we represent whether Batgirl is with The Joker or Batman?
So, xml is required when both features are needed. We can now decide if the 1st xml entry is what we want or the 2nd.
[a]
[b]Joker[/b]
[b]
[c]Batgirl[/c]
[/b]
[a]
--or--
[a]
[b]Batman[/b]
[b]
[c]Batgirl[/c]
[/b]
[/a]
Further detail in ....
http://ilupper.blogspot.com/2010/05/xml-vs-properties.html

XML is handy for complex data structures and or relationships. It does a decent job for having a "common language" between systems.
However, xml comes at a cost. Its is heavy to consume. You've got to load a parser, ensure the file is in the correct format, find the information etc...
Whereas properties files is pretty light weight and easy to read. Works for simple key/value pairs.

It depends on the data you're encoding. With XML, you can define a more complex representation of the configuration data in your application. Take something like the struts framework as an example. Within the framework you have a number of Action classes that can contain 1...n number of forward branches. With an XML configuration file, you can define it like:
<action class="MyActionClass">
<forward name="prev" targetAction="..."/>
<forward name="next" targetAction="..."/>
<forward name="help" targetAction="..."/>
</action>
This kind of association is difficult to accomplish using just the key-value pair representation of the properties file. Most likely, you would need to come up with a delimiting character and then include all of the forward actions on a single property separated by this delimiting character. It's quite a bit of work for a hackish solution.
Yet, as you pointed out, the XML syntax can become a burden if you just want to state something very simple, like set feature blah to true.

The disadvantages of XML:
It is hard to read - the tags make it look busier than it really is
The hierarchies and tags make it hard to edit and more prone to human errors
It is not possible to "append" to an XML property file to introduce a new property or provide an overriding value for an existing property so that the last one wins. The ability to append a property can be very powerful - we can implement a property management logic around this so that certain properties are "hot" and we don't need to restart the instance when these change
The Java property file solves the above problems. Consistent naming conventions and dot notation can help in solving the issue of hierarchy.

web form generation out of xml schema

I have a requirement where i need to generate html forms on the fly based on many different xml schema's (as of now i have 20 of them and the count keeps increasing). I need to collect data from the user to create instance docs corresponding to each of them and then store the instance docs in db....
challenges
1) schema has lot of unbounded complex types. so we doesnt know in advance the number and type of input types to be created. so pre-creating html etc is not an option
2) even if i can handle generation of the form on the fly, the problem is collecting the data entered..as forms generated dynamically should/will have dynamic id/names for input types
Can anyone suggest the best way to implement this?
thank you in advance

It seems to me like a clear case for XSLT.
Generating HTML from XML through XSLT is the primary goal of XSLT.
As for the id/names, you can create an XSLT which will also generate a set of id/names in a way that you can use.

Use WSDL2XForms to create XForms from XML Schemas (XSD). Then publish them with Chiba (chiba.sourceforge.net) - it converts these XForms to standard HTML forms on the server side.

The Google Code project xsd-forms seems to be a promising approach.
A XQuery-based translator from XSD to XForms is available at http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/XRX/XForms_Generator.
I don't know much about that one: http://nunojob.wordpress.com/2008/01/05/creating-a-user-interface-for-xml-schema-using-xforms/. Seems to be a presentation only.

We had a problem somewhat like this. One of our team thought that we ought to be able to create a web form UI on the fly to accept data conforming to an XSD. It turned out that this is very difficult ... given all the complexity of full XSD. So we ended up inventing our own schema language (which was both simpler and richer than XSD) and using this as the basis for generating our UI layouts. We also implemented a tool-chain for creating and validating the schemas and for generating equivalent XSDs and OWL schemas.

Simple properties to string conversion in Java

Using Java, I need to encode a Map<String, String> of name value pairs to store into a String, and be able to decode it again. These will be stored in a database column, and will probably usually be short and simple, so the common case should produce a simple nice looking line, but shouldn't corrupt the data, even if it contains unexpected characters, etc.
How would you choose to do it such that:
The encoded form is a single, human readable line
It doesn't require a big library or much context to encode / decode
Any delimeters are properly escaped
Url encoding? JSON? Do it yourself? Please specify any helper libraries or methods you'd use.
(Edited to specify more context and requirements as requested.)

As #Uri says, additional context would be good. I think your primary concerns are less about the particular encoding scheme, as rolling your own for most encodings is pretty easy for a simple Map<String, String>.
An interesting question is: what will this intermediate string encoding be used for?
if it's purely internal, an ad-hoc format is fine eg simple concatenation:
key1|value1|key2|value2
if humans night read it, a format like Ruby's map declaration is nice:
{ first_key => first_value,
second_key => second_value }
if the encoding is to send a serialised map over the wire to another application, the XML suggestion makes a lot of sense as it's standard-ish and reasonably self-documenting, at the cost of XML's verbosity.
<map>
<entry key='foo' value='bar'/>
<entry key='this' value='that'/>
</map>
if the map is going to be flushed to file and read back later by another Java application, #Cletus' suggestion of the Properties class is a good one, and has the additional benefit of being easy to open and inspect by human beings.
Edit: you've added the information that this is to store in a database column - is there a reason to use a single column, rather than three columns like so:
CREATE TABLE StringMaps
(
map_id NUMBER NOT NULL, -- ditch this if you only store one map...
key VARCHAR2 NOT NULL,
value VARCHAR2
);
As well as letting you store more semantically meaningful data, this moves the encoding/decoding into your data access layer more formally, and allows other database readers to easily see the data without having to understand any custom encoding scheme you might use. You can also easily query by key or value if you want to.
Edit again: you've said that it really does need to fit into a single column, in which case I'd either:
use the first pipe-separated encoding (or whatever exotic character you like, maybe some unprintable-in-English unicode character). Simplest thing that works. Or...
if you're using a database like Oracle that recognises XML as a real type (and so can give you XPath evaluations against it and so on) and need to be able to read the data well from the database layer, go with XML. Writing XML parsers for decoding is never fun, but shouldn't be too painful with such a simple schema.
Even if your database doesn't support XML natively, you can just throw it into any old character-like column-type...

Why not just use the Properties class? That does exactly what you want.

I have been contemplating a similar need of choosing a common representation for the conversations (transport content) between my clients and servers via a facade pattern. I want a representation that is standardized, human-readable (brief), robust, fast. I want it to be lightweight to implement and run, easy to test, and easy to "wrap". Note that I have already eliminated XML by my definition, and by explicit intent.
By "wrap", I mean that I want to support other transport content representations such as XML, SOAP, possibly Java properties or Windows INI formats, comma-separated values (CSV) and that ilk, Google protocol buffers, custom binary formats, proprietary binary formats like Microsoft Excel workbooks, and whatever else may come along. I would implement these secondary representations using wrappers/decorators around the primary facade. Each of these secondary representations is desirable, especially to integrate with other systems in certain circumstances, but none of them is desirable as a primary representation due to various shortcomings (failure to meet one or more of my criteria listed above).
Therefore, so far, I am opting for the JSON format as my primary transport content representation. I intend to explore that option in detail in the near future.
Only in cases of extreme performance considerations would I skip translating the underlying conventional format. The advantages of a clean design include good performance (no wasted effort, ease of maintainability) for which a decent hardware selection should be the only necessary complement. When performance needs become extreme (e.g., processing forty thousand incoming data files totaling forty million transactions per day), then EVERYTHING has to be revisited anyway.
As a developer, DBA, architect, and more, I have built systems of practically every size and description. I am confident in my selection of criteria, and eagerly await confirmation of its suitability. Indeed, I hope to publish an implementation as open-source (but don't hold your breath quite yet).
Note that this design discussion ignores the transport medium (HTTP, SMTP, RMI, .Net Remoting, etc.), which is intentional. I find that it is much more effective to treat the transport medium and the transport content as completely separate design considerations, from each other and from the system in question. Indeed, my intent is to make these practically "pluggable".
Therefore, I encourage you to strongly consider JSON. Best wishes.

Some additional context for the question would help.
If you're going to be encoding and decoding at the entire-map granularity, why not just use XML?

As #DanVinton says, if you need this in internal use (I mean "
internal use
as
it's used only by my components, not components written by others
you can concate key and value.
I prefer use different separator between key and key and key and value:
Instead of
key1+SEPARATOR+value1+SEPARATOR+key2 etc
I code
key1+SEPARATOR_KEY_AND_VALUE+value1+SEPARATOR_KEY(n)_AND_KEY(N+1)+key2 etc
if you must debug, this way is clearer (by design too)

Check out the apache commons configuration package. This will allow you to read/save a file as XML or properties format. It also gives you an option of automatically saving the property changes to a file.
Apache Configuration

A realise this is an old "deadish" thread, but I've got a solution not posited previously which I think is worth throwing in the ring.
We store "arbitrary" attributes (i.e. created by the user at runtime) of geographic features in a single CLOB column in the DB in the standard XML attributes format. That is:
name="value" name="value" name="value"
To create an XML element you just "wrap up" the attributes in an xml element. That is:
String xmlString += "<arbitraryAttributes" + arbitraryAttributesString + " />"
"Serialising" a Properties instance to an xml-attributes-string is a no-brainer... it's like ten lines of code. We're lucky in that we can impose on the users the rule that all attribute names must be valid xml-element-names; and we xml-escape (i.e. &quote; etc) each "value" to avoid problems from double-quotes and whatever in the value strings.
It's effective, flexible, fast (enough) and simple.
Now, having said all that... if we had the time again, we'd just totally divorce ourselves from the whole "metadata problem" by storing the complete unadulterated uninterpreted metadata xml-document in a CLOB and use one of the open-source metadata editors to handle the whole mess.
Cheers. Keith.