libxmlplusplus-general — Open discusions about libXML++

[libxml++] libglademm using MSVC.NET 2003

[Clyde M. <Cl...@fi...>]

Hi

I have been trying to get libglademm working under MSVC .NET 2003. I
managed to get the normal gtkmm working, but get linking errors when
trying to use libglademm. I had to compile the library file
(libglademm.lib) myself, and am not sure if I did it correctly. I get a
LOT of these errors when trying to compile code using libglademm:

msvcprt.lib(MSVCP71.dll) : error LNK2005: "public: unsigned int
__thiscall std::basic_string<char,struct std::char_traits<char>,class
std::allocator<char> >::max_size(void)const "
(?max_size@?$basic_string@DU?$char_traits@D@std@@V?$allocator@D@2@@std@@
QBEIXZ) already defined in LibG.obj

Could you please tell me if there is an existing version of
libglademm.lib? Any version should be okay!

Thanks
Damon Oberholster

Re: [libxml++] Segmentation fault calling libxml++ function

[Christophe de V. <cde...@al...>]

Wu Shiau Ning-A20800 wrote:

> Hi,
>  
> I've been trying to run my program, and it core dumps on the call to 
> parse_file. I a m using libxml++-1.0.3 on a Solaris 9 machine. Could 
> you please tell me what is wrong ? I know its very little information, 
> but I am wondering if there has been any problem for libxml to run on 
> Solaris machine

Helping you on this without at least a backtrace is quite difficult.

However a common issue on Solaris is the static initialisations of libxml++.

Try adding a :

xmlpp::Document::Init init;

Somewhere in your main program.


Regards,

Christophe

[libxml++] Segmentation fault calling libxml++ function

[Wu S. Ning-A. <shi...@mo...>]

Hi, 
 
I've been trying to run my program, and it core dumps on the call to parse_file. I a m using libxml++-1.0.3 on a Solaris 9 machine. Could you please tell me what is wrong ? I know its very little information, but I am wondering if there has been any problem for libxml to run on Solaris machine
 
 
Thanks and Regards,
 
Shiau Ning
 

[libxml++] ANNOUNCE: libxml++ 2.8.0 (stable)

[Christophe de V. <cde...@al...>]

(this time with the right title...)

*** libxml++

  libxml++ is a C++ wrapper for the libxml XML parser library. It has SAX
  and DOM-like APIs, but does not attempt to conform exactly to the DOM
  specifications because they are not aimed at C++. Its API is much
  simpler than the underlying libxml C API.


*** Homepage

  http://libxmlplusplus.sourceforge.net/


*** Notes

This is the first stable release on the 2.8 branch.


*** Changes (since 2.6.x)

* Code Cleaning.
* Fixed bug #150082 (Christophe de Vienne)
* Added Validator and DtdValidator (Guillaume Arreckx)


*** Download

  You can download libxml++ 2.8.0 from gnome servers:

  http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/libxml++/2.8/




  Best Regards,

  Christophe de Vienne

[libxml++] ANNOUNCE: libxml++ 2.6.1 (stable)

[Christophe de V. <cde...@al...>]

*** libxml++

  libxml++ is a C++ wrapper for the libxml XML parser library. It has SAX
  and DOM-like APIs, but does not attempt to conform exactly to the DOM
  specifications because they are not aimed at C++. Its API is much
  simpler than the underlying libxml C API.


*** Homepage

  http://libxmlplusplus.sourceforge.net/


*** Notes

This is the first stable release on the 2.8 branch.


*** Changes (since 2.6.x)

* Code Cleaning.
* Fixed bug #150082 (Christophe de Vienne)
* Added Validator and DtdValidator (Guillaume Arreckx)


*** Download

  You can download libxml++ 2.8.0 from gnome servers:

  http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/libxml++/2.8/




  Best Regards,

  Christophe de Vienne

Re: [libxml++] Licensing

[Jonathan W. <co...@co...>]

On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 04:36:41PM +0200, Christophe de VIENNE wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> Recently a developper from a big company (I've been asked not to tell 
> which one) contacted be about libxml++ license.

I realise this has been resolved by changing the website, but I've only
just read the mails and wanted to comment...

> Their legal deparment, to allow the use of a GPLed C++ library, need the 
> copyright owner to clarify a quite simple point, about deriving classes 
> from libxml++.
> The clarification has been expressed like this :
> 
> "FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF ANY DOUBT, DERIVING SUB-CLASSES BASED ON LIBXML++ 
> CLASSES IN A PROPRIETARY FILE DOES NOT MAKE SUCH PROPRIETARY FILE A WORK 
> BASED ON LIBXML++, PROVIDED THAT SUCH PROPRIETARY FILE IS NOT ITSELF A 
> LIBRARY"

If the legal team is incapable of interpreting the LGPL then they should
contact the FSF, not request that every project using the licence
changes the wording for their benefit.

> My personnal opinion is that this point is ok, and if adding it to the 
> license as a clarification allows more people to use libxml++, I'd like 
> to do it.

Adding that to the licence would be a big mistake. It would make the
libxml++ licence different to every other LGPL licence, and would
require legal teams to analyse it separately. It is much better to use a
well-known and widely-used licence _without_modifications_ so that if
the legal team has already decided it is OK to use code under that
licence then they don't have to look again for each new piece of code
with that licence.

Adding text to the website to clarify the meaning is the best solution
IMHO.

jon


-- 
"It is easier to port a shell than a shell script."
	- Larry Wall

Re: [libxml++] Licensing

[Christophe de V. <cde...@al...>]

Hi again,

Following the discussion on the License clarification, here is what I 
propose to add to the website.
Fell free to comment. I'll commit this in a few days if 1) I have no 
objection 2) I have the confirmation from the requesting person that 
it's what he needs.


    License

Libxml++ is released under the LGPL version 2 or above (+ link to the 
License on the gnu site).


      Clarifications

As requested by some users, here are a few clarifications on the licence:

    * Things that proprietary projects can do:
          o Derive sub-classes based on libxml++ classes
    * Things that proprietary projects cannot do:
          o Link statically (instead of dynamically) to libxml++.
          o Change their own copy of libxml++ and distribute object code
            (for instance, an application+DLLs that a user installs) for
            that changed libxml++, but then refuse to give the changes
            to people who have received the object code.



Regards,

Christophe

[libxml++] Licensing

[Christophe de V. <cde...@al...>]

Dear all,

Recently a developper from a big company (I've been asked not to tell 
which one) contacted be about libxml++ license.

Their legal deparment, to allow the use of a GPLed C++ library, need the 
copyright owner to clarify a quite simple point, about deriving classes 
from libxml++.
The clarification has been expressed like this :

"FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF ANY DOUBT, DERIVING SUB-CLASSES BASED ON LIBXML++ 
CLASSES IN A PROPRIETARY FILE DOES NOT MAKE SUCH PROPRIETARY FILE A WORK 
BASED ON LIBXML++, PROVIDED THAT SUCH PROPRIETARY FILE IS NOT ITSELF A 
LIBRARY"

My personnal opinion is that this point is ok, and if adding it to the 
license as a clarification allows more people to use libxml++, I'd like 
to do it.

However before making any decision, I want to have some other points of 
view, especially if some of you disagree.

Best Regards,

Christophe

-- 
Christophe de Vienne

Re: [libxml++] setting root element

[<var...@ya...>]

hi, 
i just asked the similar question yesterday, so i can
answer that. If you are using libxml++ > 1.0, then all
the classes have a function cobj(), which gives you
access to the underlying libxml++ structure, which
might be private element of the class.
i was using and reading and using libxml++ 1.0 API ,
that is y i didnt know about it.
 if such questions arise... I guess libxml++ does need
some additional APIs so as to transfer all the powers
of libxml2 into it.
Having said that, there is no doubt that the interface
provided by libxml++ is much easier compared to
libxml2.

cheers
Varun

 --- Sukanta Baliarsingh <sba...@st...>
wrote: 
> Hi,
> 
>  
> 
> Since libxml++ does not provide API to set root
> element, I am trying to call
> libxml2 call 
> xmlDocSetRootElement(__xmlDoc*,_xmlNode*), and I
> can't get the
> _xmlDoc* from libxml++ Document* since it's private.
> Has anybody tried it
> before and or have any idea how to get there?
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks.
> 
>  


	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!  http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

[libxml++] setting root element

[Sukanta B. <sba...@st...>]

Hi,

 

Since libxml++ does not provide API to set root element, I am trying to call
libxml2 call  xmlDocSetRootElement(__xmlDoc*,_xmlNode*), and I can't get the
_xmlDoc* from libxml++ Document* since it's private. Has anybody tried it
before and or have any idea how to get there?

 

Thanks.

Re: [libxml++] extensibility problems with libxml++

[Christophe de V. <cde...@al...>]

Varun Sekhri a écrit :

>hi, 
>yes I have to access that doc pointer, declared in
>Document class as private. Please tell me more about
>cobj() , which can give the access to a private
>member, and allow me to make changes in the document
>and hash table associated with it for registering the
>ID type attributes.
>  
>
http://libxmlplusplus.sourceforge.net/reference/2.7/html/classxmlpp_1_1Document.html#a16
This function is here for cases like yours, when a quick addition of a 
mapping is not possible, but the use of a libxml functionnality is required.
Of course it somehow breaks the encapsulation, but from a pragmatic 
point of view, it's worth it.

>or again, there might be another approach to go. my
>problem is that i have to use libxml++, because of
>another library built using libxml++.
>  
>
It is the simpliest approach possible. In a long term view, you still 
can propose a patch for a mapping addition, which will be included in 
the next api version.

Regards,

Christophe

Re: [libxml++] extensibility problems with libxml++

[Christophe de V. <cde...@al...>]

Varun Sekhri a écrit :

>Hello, 
>  
>

Hi !


[snip]

>Can anybody tell me if there is a neater solution
>there..
>  
>

The best solution is to add those mappings to Document (and Element/Node 
?), and propose a patch ! Since it's quite trivial, it will certainly be 
included in the next release (comming very soon, I was about to prepare 
it today or tomorrow, I can wait one more day and do it monday).

Regards,

Christophe

-- 
Christophe de Vienne
Alpha Centauri
tel: 01 47 82 93 78

[libxml++] extensibility problems with libxml++

[<var...@ya...>]

Hello, 
I am using libxml++, to create another application.
Here is my problem, in the application there is a
global ID say p:ID of xml schema type ID. Thus the
application should support this ID, without any given
DTD or XML schema definition for the application.

To draw an analogy, it is equivalent to local ID
attribute defined in XML Dsig spec or XML Enc spec,
only this time it is a global ID.

Thus my parser should support inclusion of such an ID.


The solution which is there is to "hack" libxml2 and
use xmlAddID and xmlGetID functions where both require
doc pointer for the xml document. but I am not "ABLE"
to use libxml2 directly. I use libxml++. 


So to be precise, I can not access the document
pointer as it is private , and there are no
extensiblity mechanisms possible. The only way seems
to be creating another class, declaring it as a freind
of Document class, add some functions and recompile
the whole libxml++.

Can anybody tell me if there is a neater solution
there..
varun





	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!  http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Re: [libxml++] Converting a xmlChar* to a char*

[Christophe de V. <cde...@al...>]

Moretti, Luciano (MED) wrote:

>ok, I know that this is LibXML++ list, not LibXML, but I figured that
>someone on here would know the answer just as fast, and I wouldn't have
>to join another list (Yeah, I'm being lazy)
>
>What's the best way to convert a xmlChar* to something that can be
>passed as a char*?  Yes, I do realize that it's probably going to
>involve a copy routine to do the translation from Unicode.  (I need to
>run data through atod/atof to convert it to numbers)
>  
>

If you have no special characters (ascii code > 127), a simple cast is 
fine. So if you have only digits it's ok.

Regards,

Christophe

[libxml++] Converting a xmlChar* to a char*

[Moretti, L. (MED) <Luc...@me...>]

ok, I know that this is LibXML++ list, not LibXML, but I figured that
someone on here would know the answer just as fast, and I wouldn't have
to join another list (Yeah, I'm being lazy)

What's the best way to convert a xmlChar* to something that can be
passed as a char*?  Yes, I do realize that it's probably going to
involve a copy routine to do the translation from Unicode.  (I need to
run data through atod/atof to convert it to numbers)

Thanks,

Luciano

Re: [libxml++] questions sur l'utilisation de libxml++

[Christophe de V. <cde...@al...>]

Adeline Lancien a écrit :

>bonjour!!
>  
>

Hi,

This list is english-speaking, please try using it. Thanks !

>Je programme en C++ et je cherche à lire et à écrire des données dans un
>fichier XML.
>Pour ça, j'ai téléchargé : glibmm-2.4.4.tar.gz et libxml++-2.7.0.tar.gz.
>  
>

What is your OS (windows ? linux ?)

>Je voulais me servir des exemples qui sont livrés dans libxml++-2.7.0,
>par exemple le fichier main.cc du dossier Dom_Parser. J'ai donc fait
>dans mon programme des "#include" des fichiers ".h" requis, mais à la
>compilation, je n'ai pas trouvé les fichiers :
>                                    - gmacros.h
>                                    - gunicode.h
>                                    - glibmmconfig.h
>                                    - gstrfuncs.h
>                                    - etc
>Pourriez vous me dire à quel endroit je peux trouver tous ces fichiers?
>  
>

Some are from glib, others from glibmm.

Did the examples correctly compiled when you built libxml++ ?
Did  you correctly install glibmm ?
What are you compiler command line options (especially the includes).


Regards,

Christophe

[libxml++] questions sur l'utilisation de libxml++

[Adeline L. <ade...@th...>]

bonjour!!

Je programme en C++ et je cherche =E0 lire et =E0 =E9crire des donn=E9es =
dans un
fichier XML.
Pour =E7a, j'ai t=E9l=E9charg=E9 : glibmm-2.4.4.tar.gz et libxml++-2.7.0.=
tar.gz.

Je voulais me servir des exemples qui sont livr=E9s dans libxml++-2.7.0,
par exemple le fichier main.cc du dossier Dom_Parser. J'ai donc fait
dans mon programme des "#include" des fichiers ".h" requis, mais =E0 la
compilation, je n'ai pas trouv=E9 les fichiers :
                                    - gmacros.h
                                    - gunicode.h
                                    - glibmmconfig.h
                                    - gstrfuncs.h
                                    - etc
Pourriez vous me dire =E0 quel endroit je peux trouver tous ces fichiers?

Merci d'avance!!!

Re: [libxml++] Re: Libxmlplusplus-general digest, Vol 1 #293 - 1 msg

[Christophe de V. <cde...@al...>]

Stefan Seefeld a écrit :

> Christophe de VIENNE wrote:
>
>> Have you seen the new serialization module ? It includes XML as a 
>> possible archive format, which is even more generic since XML is just 
>> a backend to the lib.
>
> yeah, I'v followed the discussions a bit though I didn't look inside
> yet.

I tested it quickly (but not the xml backend). It's really powerfull.

> I wouldn't say it's more generic, it just serves a very different
> goal. The fact that it involves xml is pure coincidence ;-)

It's indeed a very particuliar use of xml.


Christophe

Re: [libxml++] Re: Libxmlplusplus-general digest, Vol 1 #293 - 1 msg

[Stefan S. <se...@sy...>]

Christophe de VIENNE wrote:

> Have you seen the new serialization module ? It includes XML as a 
> possible archive format, which is even more generic since XML is just a 
> backend to the lib.

yeah, I'v followed the discussions a bit though I didn't look inside
yet. I wouldn't say it's more generic, it just serves a very different
goal. The fact that it involves xml is pure coincidence ;-)

Regards,
		Stefan

Re: [libxml++] Re: Libxmlplusplus-general digest, Vol 1 #293 - 1 msg

[Christophe de V. <cde...@al...>]

Stefan Seefeld a écrit :

> Daniel Veillard wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 11:07:43AM -0400, Kurt M. Brown wrote:
>>
>>> I agree that a generic C++ API for xml would be useful; one the closely
>>> matches: http://www.w3.org/DOM/.
>>
>>   which totally sucks because it mandates UTF-16 strings.
>> There is a good reason I didn't tried to implement "real" DOM in
>> libxml2, I woudn't have been conformant anyway because there i no
>> way I would have agreed to constantly recode UTF-16 to UTF-8 and
>> back. C++ API for DOM is defined as the output of C++ header generator
>> on the CORBA bindings, eek :-(
>
> is it ? I'v never seen anything about an officially endorsed C++ xml API
> (DOM, SAX, whatever). In any case, I believe on the boost list the 
> consensus
> was not to rewrite the java-like APIs in C++ but rather use C++ specific
> idioms as much as possible.
> While I would be satisfied in an implementation that wraps libxml2,
> boost people obviously want to be sure that an API that gets accepted is
> implementable by other backends, too.


Have you seen the new serialization module ? It includes XML as a 
possible archive format, which is even more generic since XML is just a 
backend to the lib.

Regards,

Christophe

Re: [libxml++] Re: Libxmlplusplus-general digest, Vol 1 #293 - 1 msg

[Stefan S. <se...@sy...>]

Daniel Veillard wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 11:07:43AM -0400, Kurt M. Brown wrote:
> 
>>I agree that a generic C++ API for xml would be useful; one the closely
>>matches: http://www.w3.org/DOM/.
> 
> 
>   which totally sucks because it mandates UTF-16 strings.
> There is a good reason I didn't tried to implement "real" DOM in
> libxml2, I woudn't have been conformant anyway because there i no
> way I would have agreed to constantly recode UTF-16 to UTF-8 and
> back. C++ API for DOM is defined as the output of C++ header generator
> on the CORBA bindings, eek :-(

is it ? I'v never seen anything about an officially endorsed C++ xml API
(DOM, SAX, whatever). In any case, I believe on the boost list the consensus
was not to rewrite the java-like APIs in C++ but rather use C++ specific
idioms as much as possible.
While I would be satisfied in an implementation that wraps libxml2,
boost people obviously want to be sure that an API that gets accepted is
implementable by other backends, too.

Regards,
		Stefan

Re: [libxml++] Re: Libxmlplusplus-general digest, Vol 1 #293 - 1 msg

[Jonathan W. <co...@co...>]

On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 11:07:43AM -0400, Kurt M. Brown wrote:

> I agree that a generic C++ API for xml would be useful; one the closely
> matches: http://www.w3.org/DOM/.
> 
> I think the only difference between libxml++ version 1 and 2.7 is the
> string type. That being the case, why not just make a typedef or a
> wrapper for the string type?

The typedef would have to live outside the library for it to be settable
by users of the library - so might as well be a #define - eurgh.

That would mean that binary versions of libxml++ were not compatible
unless compiled with the same value for the #define - euuuurgh.

The C++ way to do it, as Stefan suggests, is with templates.

jon


-- 
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
	- Phillip K. Dick

Re: [libxml++] Re: Libxmlplusplus-general digest, Vol 1 #293 - 1 msg

[Daniel V. <vei...@re...>]

On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 11:07:43AM -0400, Kurt M. Brown wrote:
> I agree that a generic C++ API for xml would be useful; one the closely
> matches: http://www.w3.org/DOM/.

  which totally sucks because it mandates UTF-16 strings.
There is a good reason I didn't tried to implement "real" DOM in
libxml2, I woudn't have been conformant anyway because there i no
way I would have agreed to constantly recode UTF-16 to UTF-8 and
back. C++ API for DOM is defined as the output of C++ header generator
on the CORBA bindings, eek :-(

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Veillard      | Red Hat Desktop team http://redhat.com/
vei...@re...  | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/

[libxml++] Re: Libxmlplusplus-general digest, Vol 1 #293 - 1 msg

[Kurt M. B. <kur...@ya...>]

I agree that a generic C++ API for xml would be useful; one the closely
matches: http://www.w3.org/DOM/.

I think the only difference between libxml++ version 1 and 2.7 is the
string type. That being the case, why not just make a typedef or a
wrapper for the string type?


On Sun, 2004-08-15 at 23:41,
lib...@li... wrote:
> Send Libxmlplusplus-general mailing list submissions to
> 	lib...@li...
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libxmlplusplus-general
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	lib...@li...
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	lib...@li...
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Libxmlplusplus-general digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. Re: LibXML++ Min Requirements/ diff between 1 & 2.7? (Stefan Seefeld)
> 
> --__--__--
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 20:50:27 -0400
> From: Stefan Seefeld <se...@sy...>
> To:  lib...@li...
> Subject: Re: [libxml++] LibXML++ Min Requirements/ diff between 1 & 2.7?
> Reply-To: lib...@li...
> 
> Christophe de Vienne wrote:
> > Thomas Jarosch wrote:
> > 
> >>> I personnaly did not try to extract Glib::ustring. Can't help on this.
> >>> However you don't need GTK+ to install glibmm-2.4, which depends only on
> >>> glib. This make the dependencies much lower than you suggest.
> >>> FYI:
> >>> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=3923642&forum_id=127
> >>>
> >>>   
> >>
> >>
> >> We do this in our custom RPM specfile:
> >>  
> >>
> > 
> > [snip big patch to get rid of Glib::ustring]
> > 
> > Is there a particular reason for you to get rid if Glib::ustring ?
> > 
> > Is there other people doing such a thing ?
> 
> You may remember our discussion about this very point quite a while ago.
> I was in a similar position, i.e. the company for which I was looking for
> a solution was already using qt which has its own unicode API.
> 
> I thus suggested to parametrize the code to make the (unicode) string type
> a template parameter and the conversion between it and the internal xmlChar
> type a template 'trait'.
> Apparently everybody but me was happy with the move to hook libxml++ up
> with glib, so I followed my suggested design on my own. The result ended
> eventually on the boost.org list as a suggestion, but unfortunately I
> didn't yet manage to finish a revision that follows all the (very good)
> criticism I received on the boost mailing list.
> 
> I still believe that a generic C++ API for xml would be a very useful
> thing, but unfortunately I doubt for various reasons that libxml++
> in its current design can play this role.
> 
> Regards,
> 		Stefan
> 
> 
> 
> --__--__--
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Libxmlplusplus-general mailing list
> Lib...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libxmlplusplus-general
> 
> 
> End of Libxmlplusplus-general Digest

Re: [libxml++] LibXML++ Min Requirements/ diff between 1 & 2.7?

[Christophe de V. <cde...@al...>]

Stefan Seefeld a écrit :

> Christophe de VIENNE wrote:
>
>> Can I see you work somewhere ? Although we choosed not to do that, 
>> I'm interested to see how it looks like.
>
>
> Sure. It's at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boost/files/xml/,

Well I'd prefer not to register on Yahoo. Although if there is no other 
way I will.

> though, as I said, it's quite old and doesn't incorporate any of the
> suggestions made in the discussions on the boost ML. You may search
> the boost mailing list for xml related discussions, also.

I'll try to have a look.


Regards,

Christophe