From: Lucas De M. <luc...@pr...> - 2011-02-28 18:19:37
|
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <rm...@14...> wrote: > Em 27-02-2011 23:25, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri escreveu: >> Again, this is far from standards compliant as libxml2, but it's even >> far from the bloat these xml libs carry. I'd propose it to be >> integrated into Eina as it's very useful and small. >> >> The idea came from quaker66 that is doing xkbd/language module and >> would like to avoid libxml2... he cited using efreet, but that would >> be nonsense and efreet does not expose its parser... actually efreet >> could be converted to use this new parser I'm proposing. > > Daniel Veillard was quite proud of how libxml2 was extremely fast and > standards compliant. > > Now... I don't remember if he was proud of how fast it was *being* > standards compliant or if at the time he even had performed comparisons > with non compliant fast implementations. > > However... I am very wary of statements considering bloatness and > performance of xml parsers unless made by *experts* in the field and > would instintively prefer a million times over a well maintained and > complete library. May I quote Confuncius? "Do not use a cannon to kill a mosquito." For a handfull of use cases like those Gustavo presented we don't need (and we don't want) a full XML implementation. We just need a tiny subset that will be useful for other EFL libraries like efreet and for those who don't need to link to yet-another-library just to parse simple xml files. regards, Lucas De Marchi |