Re: [Libxmlplusplus-general] Parser abstraction

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

Christophe de Vienne wrote:

> The main interest I see in keeping an abstraction for parser is that they have 
> common options. One thing I want to be done on it is to be able to configure 
> the parsers through this abstact Parser class. The options I'm refering to 
> concerns, for exemple, if the document has to be validated or not. I don't 
> have in mind the complete list of them but they're is other ones that are 
> interesting to have.
> The difference between both parsers is the output, but the input is exactly 
> the same : we can parse a file, a buffer, a stream, and the abstraction 
> defines only how input can be given to the Parser, not the way to retrieve 
> any result.

ok, I see. Well, this option-setting mechanism isn't currently part of the
API. Would it be, I probably wouldn't ask the question.


> I don't think having a Document class is incompatible with a parser 
> abstraction. Your factory function is in fact a DomParser, which returns a 
> Document instead of a root_node (this probably better, since it's closer to 
> libxml).

indeed.

> Moreover, I personnaly think that having a DomParser class makes more natural 
> the fact to have several parser working at the same time.

I don't understand that. Again, generating a document object doesn't involve
any state that justifies a parser *object*. Even the parser options you are
talking about could well be put into the 'create_document' function arguments
(with sensible default values).

Stefan