libxmlplusplus-general

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

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

What are the ABSOLUTE minimum requirements for using this package?
I know the requirements stated for version 2.6 & Higher on the sourceforge
site are libxml2 & glibmm-2.4, but glibmm-2.4 seems to require the GTK+
library, which creates more overhead.  The site mentions using a subset of
glibmm-2.4 that contains Glib::ustring but doesn't expand any further on how
to do this.

Also- What are the major differences between V1.0 & V2.7?  I'm looking at
the potential of using the old version because of it's lower dependencies.


Thank you,

Luciano Moretti

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

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

Moretti, Luciano (MED) wrote:

>What are the ABSOLUTE minimum requirements for using this package?
>I know the requirements stated for version 2.6 & Higher on the sourceforge
>site are libxml2 & glibmm-2.4, but glibmm-2.4 seems to require the GTK+
>library, which creates more overhead.  The site mentions using a subset of
>glibmm-2.4 that contains Glib::ustring but doesn't expand any further on how
>to do this.
>  
>

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=12784

>Also- What are the major differences between V1.0 & V2.7?  I'm looking at
>the potential of using the old version because of it's lower dependencies.
>  
>

2.6:
- use of Glib::ustring instead of std::string.
- Addition of TextReader interface

2.7:
- Addition of Validator and DtdValidator



Regards,

Christophe

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

[Thomas J. <tho...@in...>]

> >What are the ABSOLUTE minimum requirements for using this package?
> >I know the requirements stated for version 2.6 & Higher on the sourceforge
> >site are libxml2 & glibmm-2.4, but glibmm-2.4 seems to require the GTK+
> >library, which creates more overhead.  The site mentions using a subset of
> >glibmm-2.4 that contains Glib::ustring but doesn't expand any further on
> > how to do this.
>
> 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:
# Remove glib::ustring stuff as we don't need it
perl -p -i -e "s/Glib::ustring/std::string/g" `find . -name *.cc`
perl -p -i -e "s/Glib::ustring/std::string/g" `find . -name *.h`
perl -p -i -e "s/glibmm\/ustring.h/string/" `find . -name *.cc`
perl -p -i -e "s/glibmm\/ustring.h/string/" `find . -name *.h

and apply this patch, too:

diff -u -r libxml++-2.6.1/configure.in libxml++.ustring/configure.in
--- libxml++-2.6.1/configure.in Wed May  5 15:01:34 2004
+++ libxml++.ustring/configure.in       Fri Jul  2 21:41:14 2004
@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@

 AC_CHECK_HEADERS(string list map, , exit)

-PKG_CHECK_MODULES(LIBXML, libxml-2.0 >= 2.6.1 glibmm-2.4 >= 2.4.0)
+PKG_CHECK_MODULES(LIBXML, libxml-2.0 >= 2.6.1)

 # Dummy conditional just to make automake-1.4 happy.
 # We need an always-false condition in docs/Makefile.am.
diff -u -r libxml++-2.6.1/libxml++-2.6.pc.in 
libxml++.ustring/libxml++-2.6.pc.in
--- libxml++-2.6.1/libxml++-2.6.pc.in   Wed May  5 11:38:22 2004
+++ libxml++.ustring/libxml++-2.6.pc.in Fri Jul  2 21:48:22 2004
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@

 Name: libxml++
 Description: C++ wrapper for libxml
-Requires: libxml-2.0 glibmm-2.4
+Requires: libxml-2.0
 Version: @VERSION@
 Libs: -L${libdir} -lxml++-2.6
 Cflags: -I${includedir}/libxml++-2.6 -I${libdir}/libxml++-2.6/include

Hope that helps.

Cheers,
Thomas

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

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

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 ?

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

[Thomas J. <tho...@in...>]

> >>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=1
> >>27
> >
> >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 ?

Our code already deals with UTF8, so we would have to link Glibmm
+ rewrite the code. Don't think other people do this, too...

Thomas

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

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

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

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

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

Stefan Seefeld wrote:

> Christophe de Vienne wrote:
>
>> Thomas Jarosch wrote:
>>
>>> 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 certainly remember, and that's partly why I'm asking, to see if the 
choice we made is good for the majority of users.

> 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.

Can I see you work somewhere ? Although we choosed not to do that, I'm 
interested to see how it looks like.

>
> 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.


You're probably rigth. Moreover we're looking more for stability right 
now. Features will be added of course, but we'll keep API compatibility 
as much as we decently can.


Regards,

Christophe

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

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

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/,
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. These boost
discussions are always very instructive.

Regards,
		Stefan

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