[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