tclxml-users — Discussion on using the TclXML package

[Tclxml-users] Can't find package xml 2.4

[Abner J. <ab...@de...>]

Hello,

    I'm having problems in Linux machines where I tried to install tclxml
2.4.
    I had installed it in Solaris machines before, with my personal login
(without root privileges) and it worked just fine for all our Solaris
machines here and all our users too.
    Later we tried installing it for our Linux machines and we did so using
root privileges.
    Bottom-line is, when we try to execute our program under the Linux
machines we get the "Can't find package xml 2.4" error.
    Could anyone point out to me what could be wrong? Maybe a conflict in
environment variables, maybe a conflict with installing twice under the same
network? I can't figure it out myself, help plz!!~

Thank you,

Abner

Re: [Tclxml-users] TCL XML and Unicode

[Steve B. <Ste...@zv...>]

Moisei RABINOVITCH wrote:
> I would say that after 4 years experience of working with TCL and DOM XML I
> fill completely lost between different versions of TCL,XML,DOM etc.
> I am reading the posts to this list regular and I understand that I am not
> alone with this feeling...

Any suggestions for improved documentation on the website
are welcome.  I try and make conference papers, etc,
available to help fill-in people's knowledge.

> OK, here is my question and may be somebody could show me the light at end
> of this tunnel:
> 
> my environment is Windows 2000
> I am ready to use any version of TCL 8.* (I would prefer 8.3)
> I am ready to use any version of XML/DOM parser (I would prefer compiled
> version rather than pure TLC because of performance issue)
> 
> what I need  is to parse Unicode XML file attached below.
> The file is Unicode - UTF-16 file that contains Hebrew letters.

Roy Nurmi has sent me (private) email over the last couple of weeks
to address the issue of handling documents with different character
encodings.  The problems stem from the fact that Tcl (very nicely)
handles the encodings when the document is read, but then
libxml2 also attempts to transcode the characters.  This can
be further confused if the XML document itself contains
an 'encoding' attribute in the XML declaration, ie.

<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-16'?>

We have been tossing around some ideas to address the problem,
and Roy has his own workarounds.  Unfortunately I have been
rather busy over the last couple of weeks and so have not
been able to give this matter my full attention.

> Please, if somebody (Bill, Andreas?) could help me to find pre-compiled
> properly version of needed software, I would very appreciate this.

Try TclDevKit from ActiveState.  I just downloaded v2.0 beta2
yesterday and it has the latest CVS HEAD changes.  That is, although
it has a TclDOM/libxml2 package that identifies itself as v2.5,
it actually is more advanced than that and is closer to v2.6.
[BTW, I'm planning on changing my policy on management of the CVS
repository to provide more stability.]

> 1. I am able to view the file in IE (6) with all Hebrew letters
> 
> 2. I am able to read/write this file through TCL and file is not changed:
> -----------
> set f {c:/1.xml}
> set fh [open $f]
> fconfigure $fh -encoding unicode -translation auto
> set xml [read $fh]
> close $fh
> 
> set f {c:/2.xml}
> set fh [open $f "w"]
> fconfigure $fh -encoding unicode -translation auto
> puts -nonewline $fh $xml
> close $fh
> -----------
> The file 2.xml if completely same as 1.xml

That's what I would expect, since Tcl is very good at interpreting
different character encodings.

> 3. I am unable to parse this file in any TCL XML/DOM parser known to me:
> 
> TCL 8.3.5 from ActiveState:
<snip/>

Well, I'm not surprised.  As I said to Roy I have pretty much
punted on character encodings up until now.  We need to check
the libxml2 API to make sure that the data is passed in a
correct encoding (utf-8) and that the library knows which
encoding is being used.

Cheers,
Steve Ball

-- 
Steve Ball            |   XSLT Standard Library   | Training & Seminars
Zveno Pty Ltd         |     Web Tcl Complete      |   XML XSL Schemas
http://www.zveno.com/ |      TclXML TclDOM        | Tcl, Web Development
Ste...@zv...  +---------------------------+---------------------
Ph. +61 2 6242 4099   |   Mobile (0413) 594 462   | Fax +61 2 6242 4099

[Tclxml-users] TCL XML and Unicode

[Moisei R. <mra...@il...>]

Hello, dear all.
I would say that after 4 years experience of working with TCL and DOM X=
ML I
fill completely lost between different versions of TCL,XML,DOM etc.
I am reading the posts to this list regular and I understand that I am =
not
alone with this feeling...
OK, here is my question and may be somebody could show me the light at =
end
of this tunnel:

my environment is Windows 2000
I am ready to use any version of TCL 8.* (I would prefer 8.3)
I am ready to use any version of XML/DOM parser (I would prefer compile=
d
version rather than pure TLC because of performance issue)

what I need  is to parse Unicode XML file attached below.
The file is Unicode - UTF-16 file that contains Hebrew letters.

Please, if somebody (Bill, Andreas?) could help me to find pre-compiled=

properly version of needed software, I would very appreciate this.

1. I am able to view the file in IE (6) with all Hebrew letters

2. I am able to read/write this file through TCL and file is not change=
d:
-----------
set f {c:/1.xml}
set fh [open $f]
fconfigure $fh -encoding unicode -translation auto
set xml [read $fh]
close $fh

set f {c:/2.xml}
set fh [open $f "w"]
fconfigure $fh -encoding unicode -translation auto
puts -nonewline $fh $xml
close $fh
-----------
The file 2.xml if completely same as 1.xml

3. I am unable to parse this file in any TCL XML/DOM parser known to me=
:

TCL 8.3.5 from ActiveState:
set f {C:/1.xml}
set fh [open $f]
fconfigure $fh -encoding unicode -translation auto
set xml [read $fh]; puts ok; # to suppress output of the long xml strin=
g
close $fh
package require dom
dom::parse $xml
--- output --------
Entity: line 1: error: Blank needed here
??????????????
^
Entity: line 1: error: parsing XML declaration: '?>' expected
??????????????
^
Entity: line 1: error: Start tag expected, '<' not found
??????????????????????????=E2
-------------

string range $xml 0 10
?<?xml vers

Ok, let remove strange "?" at the beginning of the string:
set xml1 [string range $xml 1 end]; puts ok; # to suppress output of th=
e
long xml string
dom::parse $xml1

Entity: line 1: error: Blank needed here
??????????????
^
Entity: line 1: error: parsing XML declaration: '?>' expected
??????????????
^
Entity: line 1: error: Start tag expected, '<' not found
??????????????????????????=E2

the same error... what can I do more?
-----------------------

here is the file:
(See attached file: 1.xml)

Thank you in advance,

Best Regards,
Moisei=

Re: [Tclxml-users] 2.4 broken

[Steve B. <Ste...@zv...>]

Chad,

Unfortunately, it would seem that you're caught between
the inadequacies of an earlier version and the differences
between implementations.

First, the good news:  TclDOM/libxml2 v2.6 has all of the
basic missing methods and options (such as 'removeNode')
implemented.  In fact, the TclDOM CVS HEAD has those
changes committed (in the CVS it is still called "2.5",
but I'm working on the v2.6 release right now and will
not commit the version number change until that it
complete).

Second, the parse options for TclDOM/tcl have not been
implemented for TclDOM/libxml2.  You should file a bug
report on that.

Last, the bad news is that I have not been able to put
together an effective build system under Windows
so I can't generate binaries for that platform (any help
from Windows gurus would be appreciated!).  Your best
bet right now is TclDevKit, currently in beta release,
which does include more recent binaries for TclDOM/libxml2.

HTHs,
Steve Ball

Chad Thatcher wrote:
> I am using tclxml and tcldom 2.4 straight out of the latest activestate 
> distro on windows and it seems very very broken.  I cant upgrade to 2.5 
> because I dont have a commercial compiler on my windows install (I have 
> mingw/msys but there seems to be no makefiles for it).
> 
> Sadly it has also broken my little app I was developing which was 
> working fine on 2.0.
> 
> There seems to be so many things wrong I dont know where to begin. 
> Firstly my package includes are as follow:
> 
>    package require xml 2.4      package require dom 2.4
> 
> and my usual parse line:
> 
>    ::dom::DOMImplementation parse $_xml -chunksize 10 -progresscommand 
> {progress_counter}
> 
> just breaks completely with the message:
> 
>    bad option "....the xml source!!!....": must be -baseuri or external 
> entity command...
> 
> 
> I tried to make sense of all the changes since 2.0 but am honestly 
> struggling.  How can I go about just using the thing as normal like before?
> 
> I tried using the expat library and then also the libxml2 with 
> ::dom::libxml2::parse and they get a lot further but then complain 
> saying basic things like removeNode are not implemented! 
> Have I gone backwards in version?!
> 
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Chad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.NET email is sponsored by: FREE  SSL Guide from Thawte
> are you planning your Web Server Security? Click here to get a FREE
> Thawte SSL guide and find the answers to all your  SSL security issues.
> http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0026en
> _______________________________________________
> Tclxml-users mailing list
> Tcl...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tclxml-users

-- 
Steve Ball            |   XSLT Standard Library   | Training & Seminars
Zveno Pty Ltd         |     Web Tcl Complete      |   XML XSL Schemas
http://www.zveno.com/ |      TclXML TclDOM        | Tcl, Web Development
Ste...@zv...  +---------------------------+---------------------
Ph. +61 2 6242 4099   |   Mobile (0413) 594 462   | Fax +61 2 6242 4099

[Tclxml-users] 2.4 broken

[Chad T. <ch...@zu...>]

I am using tclxml and tcldom 2.4 straight out of the latest activestate 
distro on windows and it seems very very broken.  I cant upgrade to 2.5 
because I dont have a commercial compiler on my windows install (I have 
mingw/msys but there seems to be no makefiles for it).

Sadly it has also broken my little app I was developing which was 
working fine on 2.0.

There seems to be so many things wrong I dont know where to begin. 
 Firstly my package includes are as follow:

    package require xml 2.4   
    package require dom 2.4

and my usual parse line:

    ::dom::DOMImplementation parse $_xml -chunksize 10 -progresscommand 
{progress_counter}

just breaks completely with the message:

    bad option "....the xml source!!!....": must be -baseuri or external 
entity command...


I tried to make sense of all the changes since 2.0 but am honestly 
struggling.  How can I go about just using the thing as normal like before?

I tried using the expat library and then also the libxml2 with 
::dom::libxml2::parse and they get a lot further but then complain 
saying basic things like removeNode are not implemented!  

Have I gone backwards in version?!

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Chad.

[Tclxml-users] Re: -final 0 bug

[Mats B. <ma...@pr...>]

Ted Nolan wrote:
> You may recall that back in December, I had found a bug in using the
> pure Tcl version of tclxml to parse XML streams with the "-final 0" option.
> 
> I think someone suggested diking out the Rose patch for bug #596959, but
> there were others saying that would break something else, and there was
> no real resolution to the issue.

I believe that this patch is not correct, but I don't want to remove
it from cvs since this is bad practise. 
Look at the parts of code tagged with "Mats" where I cache unmatched
xml to be prepended to the next xml chunk. This also works for
arbitrary chopped off xml:  <stream><|...|junk var= 'u|...|ndef'/> ...
you get it.

	# This RE only fixes chopped inside tags, not chopped text.
	if {[regexp {^([^<]*)(<[^>]*$)} [lindex $sgml end] x text rest]} {
	    set sgml [lreplace $sgml end end $text]
	    # Mats: unmatched stuff means that it is chopped off. Cache it for next round.
	    set state(leftover) $rest
	}

You may check out my copy of TclXML included in my application at:
"http://coccinella.sourceforge.net"

One additional complication may arise if you get xml chunks from events
(socket) and there are any update in callbacks that triggers a new
parse operation. The xml parser is, of course, not reentrant, but
serialization must be enforced. See code below:

proc wrapper::parsereentrant {p xml} {
    
    variable refcount
    variable stack
    incr refcount
    if {$refcount == 1} {
	
	# This is the main entry: do parse original xml.
	$p parse $xml
	
	# Parse everything on the stack (until empty?).
	while {[string length $stack] > 0} {
	    set tmpstack $stack
	    set stack ""
	    $p parse $tmpstack
	}
    } else {
	
	# Reentry, put on stack for delayed execution.
	append stack $xml
    }
    incr refcount -1
    return {}
}

Mats

[Tclxml-users] Okay, figured out the configure problem

[Larry W. V. <lv...@ca...>]

src-libxml2's configure says it wants --with-xml2-include , but the code
looks for --with-libxml2-include ...
-- 
Tcl - The glue of a new generation.  <URL: http://wiki.tcl.tk/ >
Larry W. Virden <mailto:lv...@ca...> <URL: http://www.purl.org/NET/lvirden/>
Even if explicitly stated to the contrary, nothing in this posting should 
be construed as representing my employer's opinions.
-><-

[Tclxml-users] attempting to configure tcldom libxml2 code

[Larry W. V. <lv...@ca...>]

I'm trying to figure out exactly what the configure for src-libxml2
is expecting for parameters.

I have libxml2 installed.  However, it is installed in a non-standard
location.

Pointing to the directory where I have it installed continues to generate
the error:

checking for libxml2 headers... configure: error: not found, please use --with-libxml2-include

even though I have specified that flag.

Can someone give me a tip on the trick for getting this to work?

P.S.  If I build the latest CVS head for tcldom, is the C code going to
work, or does the CVS still have the bug that causes TclSOAP to fail?
-- 
Tcl - The glue of a new generation.  <URL: http://wiki.tcl.tk/ >
Larry W. Virden <mailto:lv...@ca...> <URL: http://www.purl.org/NET/lvirden/>
Even if explicitly stated to the contrary, nothing in this posting should 
be construed as representing my employer's opinions.
-><-

Re: [Tclxml-users] Possible fix for "-final 0" in pure Tcl 2.5?

[Steve B. <Ste...@zv...>]

Ted Nolan SRI Augusta GA wrote:
> You may recall that back in December, I had found a bug in using the
> pure Tcl version of tclxml to parse XML streams with the "-final 0" option.
[...snip...]
> The tokenized xml seems to be put into a list in 4-tuples, as in the
> loop at line 332 of sgmlparser.tcl:
> 
> 	foreach {tag close param text} $sgml 
> 
> The rose patch on line 175 of sgmlparse.tcl inserts -5- empty tuples
> into the tokenized xml:
> 
> 	set sgml [linsert $sgml 0 {} {} {} {} {}]
> 
> This pushes what was a "tag" into being a "close".
> 
> Should this not be -4- empty tuples?
> 
> If I apply the following patch:
[...snip...]

The thing to do at this stage is get the test suite setup
correctly.  I'll look at adding your test script to the
suite today, and run the tests against the current version
of the parser and then with your patch applied.

This should get into the v2.6 release.

Cheers,
Steve Ball

-- 
Steve Ball            |   XSLT Standard Library   | Training & Seminars
Zveno Pty Ltd         |     Web Tcl Complete      |   XML XSL Schemas
http://www.zveno.com/ |      TclXML TclDOM        | Tcl, Web Development
Ste...@zv...  +---------------------------+---------------------
Ph. +61 2 6242 4099   |   Mobile (0413) 594 462   | Fax +61 2 6242 4099

[Tclxml-users] Possible fix for "-final 0" in pure Tcl 2.5?

[Ted N. S. A. GA <te...@ag...>]

Hello folks,

You may recall that back in December, I had found a bug in using the
pure Tcl version of tclxml to parse XML streams with the "-final 0" option.

I think someone suggested diking out the Rose patch for bug #596959, but
there were others saying that would break something else, and there was
no real resolution to the issue.

I recently had a rare spare day to look at it again.  I certainly can't
claim to understand the code which uses regular expressions in a much more
heavy duty fashion than anything else I have seen in Tcl.

However, after hours of playing around with "puts", I was drawn back to
the Rose patch.  It seems to be intended to insert a null XML element
into the stream for some reason, but I question the way it does this.

The tokenized xml seems to be put into a list in 4-tuples, as in the
loop at line 332 of sgmlparser.tcl:

	foreach {tag close param text} $sgml 

The rose patch on line 175 of sgmlparse.tcl inserts -5- empty tuples
into the tokenized xml:

	set sgml [linsert $sgml 0 {} {} {} {} {}]

This pushes what was a "tag" into being a "close".

Should this not be -4- empty tuples?

If I apply the following patch:

-----CUT HERE-----
*** sgmlparser.tcl.bak	Tue Feb  4 13:34:40 2003
--- sgmlparser.tcl	Tue Feb  4 13:40:16 2003
***************
*** 172,178 ****
  
  	# Patch from bug report #596959, Marshall Rose
  	if {[string compare [lindex $sgml 4] ""]} {
! 	    set sgml [linsert $sgml 0 {} {} {} {} {}]
  	}
  
      } else {
--- 172,178 ----
  
  	# Patch from bug report #596959, Marshall Rose
  	if {[string compare [lindex $sgml 4] ""]} {
! 	    set sgml [linsert $sgml 0 {} {} {} {} ]
  	}
  
      } else {
-----CUT HERE---

Then my test program seems to run OK.

Comments?


			Ted

PS:

Here's my test program.  Run it with no args to do a piecemeal parse
with -final 0.  Run it with 1 arg to do a all at once parse with
-final 0, and run it with 2 args to do an all at once parse with -final 1.

Before the "patch", case 1 will error out, case 2 will produce no output
and case 3 will work OK.  After the patch, all 3 cases produce the same
output.

----CUT HERE----
#!/usr/local/bin/tclsh8.4

package require xml

proc xml_el_start {name attrs args} {
	puts "Start name ($name) attrs ($attrs) args ($args)"
}

proc xml_el_end {name args} {
	puts "End name ($name) args ($args)"
}

proc xml_char_data {data} {
	if { [string length $data] } {
		puts "Cdata data ($data)"
	}
}

set parser [ ::xml::parser \
	-elementstartcommand xml_el_start \
	-elementendcommand xml_el_end \
	-characterdatacommand xml_char_data \
	-defaultcommand xml_default \
	-final 0 \
]
      

if { [llength $argv]  == 0 } {
	$parser parse "<fooby>"
	$parser parse "<hello>"
	$parser parse "world"
	$parser parse "</hello>"
	$parser parse "</fooby>"
} else {
	if { [llength $argv] == 2} {
		$parser configure -final 1
	}
	$parser parse {<fooby><hello>world</hello></fooby>}
}
----CUT HERE---

Re: [Tclxml-users] Cygwin version...

[Steve B. <Ste...@zv...>]

Abner Junior wrote:
>         I'm trying to install tclxml on cygwin... is it possible? does
> anyone have the binaries?

I'm looking into building for Windows myself, but it is very
slow going.

The recently released Tcl Dev Kit from ActiveState includes
binaries for TclXML/expat, TclDOM/libxml2 and TclXSLT.
Perhaps you could use those?

Cheers,
Steve Ball

-- 
Steve Ball            |   XSLT Standard Library   | Training & Seminars
Zveno Pty Ltd         |     Web Tcl Complete      |   XML XSL Schemas
http://www.zveno.com/ |      TclXML TclDOM        | Tcl, Web Development
Ste...@zv...  +---------------------------+---------------------
Ph. +61 2 6242 4099   |   Mobile (0413) 594 462   | Fax +61 2 6242 4099

[Tclxml-users] Re: Tclxml &

[Steve B. <Ste...@zv...>]

Steve Tattersall wrote:
> I am running a tcl script which is coming up with the following error.
> 
> lib/tclxml-2.0/log/log.tcl": no such file or directory
> 
> I have installed both tclxml-2.0 and tclxml-2.5 and neither of these
> libraries contain a "log.tcl" file should this be included? I noticed
> the libtcl libs do contain this.

No version of TclXML has ever included a "log" directory or
"log.tcl" file.

> In addition I have installed tclsoap1.6.5 but there is no ".so" binary
> file installed?

I believe TclSOAP is implemented purely as a Tcl script package.
Thus it has no compiled code and no shared library.

> I hope with my rather vague information, you could shed some light on
> this. 

I'm afraid I can't help very much.  Perhaps you could provide
a complete error trace to see what is causing the fault.
I have cc'd this to the tclxml-users list in case anyone
else has encountered the problem.

BTW, looking at your script below I see that the only reason
you're using SOAP is for the SOAP::selectNode and SOAP::getElementValue
functions.  These are superceded by the dom commands
dom::selectnode and 'dom::node stringValue'.

HTHs,
Steve Ball

> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> My tcl script 
> 
> 
> #!/home/zzarchub/cheshire/bin/webcheshire
> 
> package require SOAP
> 
> proc parse_xml {xml} {
> 
>     set doc [dom::DOMImplementation parse $xml]
>     
>  #   set topNode [SOAP::selectNode $doc "/explain"]
>   set topNode [SOAP::selectNode $doc "/zeerex"]
>   set EMMID [dom::element getAttribute $topNode "id"]
>     set hostNode [SOAP::selectNode $doc "/explain/serverInfo/host"]
>     set HOST [SOAP::getElementValue $hostNode]
>     set portNode [SOAP::selectNode $doc "/explain/serverInfo/port"]
>     set PORT [SOAP::getElementValue $portNode]
>     set dbNode [SOAP::selectNode $doc "/explain/serverInfo/database"]
>     set DATABASE [SOAP::getElementValue $dbNode]
>     set titleNode [SOAP::selectNode $doc "/explain/databaseInfo/title"]
>     set TITLE [SOAP::getElementValue $titleNode]
>     
> 
>     set attrlists [list]
>     set idxtitles [list]
>     set types [list]
>     set idlist [list]
> 
>     set idxInfo [SOAP::selectNode $doc "/explain/indexInfo"]
>     set childNodes [dom::node children $idxInfo]
>     foreach child $childNodes {
> 	if {[dom::node cget $child -nodeName] == "index" } {
> 	    set mapDone 0
> 	    # Find name
> 	    set id [dom::element getAttribute $child "id"]
> 	    set nameNode [SOAP::selectNode $child "map/name"]
> 	    if {[llength $nameNode] > 1} {
> 		set nameNode [lindex $nameNode 0]
> 	    }
> 	    if {$nameNode != ""} {
> 		set mytype [SOAP::getElementValue $nameNode]
> 	    } else {
> 		set mytype "UnknownType"
> 	    }
> 	    set attrlist [list]
> 	    set idxtitle ""
> 	    set c2Nodes [dom::node children $child]
> 	    foreach c2 $c2Nodes {
> 		set c2name [dom::node cget $c2 -nodeName]
> 		if {$c2name == "title"} {
> 		    set idxtitle [SOAP::getElementValue $c2]
> 		} elseif {$c2name == "map" && $mapDone == 0} {
> 		    foreach c3 [dom::node children $c2] {
> 			if {[dom::node cget $c3 -nodeName] == "attr"} {
> 			    set mapDone 1
> 			    set aset  [dom::element getAttribute $c3
> "attributeSet"]
> 			    if {$aset == ""} {
> 				set aset "BIB1"
> 			    }
> 			    set type [dom::element getAttribute $c3
> "type"]
> 			    set val [SOAP::getElementValue $c3]
> 			    lappend attrlist [list $aset $type $val]
> 			}
> 		    }
> 		}
> 	    }
> 	    lappend idxtitles $idxtitle
> 	    lappend attrlists $attrlist
> 	    lappend types $mytype
> 	    lappend idlist $id
> 	}
>     }
>     return [list $EMMID [list $HOST $PORT $DATABASE $TITLE] $idxtitles
> $attrlists $types $idlist]
> }
> 
> set CHESHIRE_DATABASE DistAH
> set CHESHIRE_CONFIGFILE
> /home/zzarchub/distributed/zeerex/DBCONFIGFILE_ste_ead
> set CHESHIRE_NUM_START 1
> set CHESHIRE_NUMREQUESTED 1
> set CHESHIRE_RECSYNTAX XML
> set CHESHIRE_ELEMENTSET F
> 
> set max_docid 30
> 
> array set connectionInfo [list]
> array set indexAttributes [list]
> array set indexTitles [list]
> array set indexTypes [list]
> array set indexList [list]
> 
> set OUTH [open "emmcfg.tcl" w]
> 
> for {set i 1} {$i <= $max_docid} {incr i} {
>     set err [catch {search docid $i} qresults]
>     set xml [lindex $qresults 1]
> 
>     set info [parse_xml $xml]
>     
>     set EMMID [lindex $info 0]
>     puts "Processing $EMMID"
>     puts $OUTH "set connectionInfo($EMMID) \[list [lindex $info 1]\]"
> 
>     set idxtitles [lindex $info 2]
>     set attrlists [lindex $info 3]
>     set types [lindex $info 4]
>     set idlist [lindex $info 5]
> 
>     puts $OUTH "set indexList($EMMID) \[list $idlist\]"
> 
>     set len [llength $idlist]
>     for {set idx 0} {$idx < $len} {incr idx} {
> 	set id [lindex $idlist $idx]
> 	set title [lindex $idxtitles $idx]
> 	set type [lindex $types $idx]
> 
>         set attrs "\\\\\\\["
>         foreach a [lindex $attrlists $idx] {
>             append attrs "[lindex $a 0] [lindex $a 1]=[lindex $a 2], "
>         }
>         set attrs [string range $attrs 0 end-2]
>         append attrs "\\\\\\\]"
> 	
> 	if {$attrs == "\\\\\\\]"} {
> 	    #ignore
> 	} else {
> 	    puts $OUTH "set indexAttributes($id) \"$attrs\""
> 	    puts $OUTH "set indexTitles($id) \"$title\""
> 	    puts $OUTH "set indexTypes($id) \"$type\""
> 	}
>     }
> }
> 
> close $OUTH
> 
> 
> 
> Steve Tattersall
> Archives Hub Programmer
> MIMAS
> Manchester Computing
> The University of Manchester
> M13 9PL 
> Telephone 0161 275 6054
> Fax 0161 275 6040
> http://www.archiveshub.ac.uk

-- 
Steve Ball            |   XSLT Standard Library   | Training & Seminars
Zveno Pty Ltd         |     Web Tcl Complete      |   XML XSL Schemas
http://www.zveno.com/ |      TclXML TclDOM        | Tcl, Web Development
Ste...@zv...  +---------------------------+---------------------
Ph. +61 2 6242 4099   |   Mobile (0413) 594 462   | Fax +61 2 6242 4099

[Tclxml-users] CYGWIN again...

[Abner J. <ab...@de...>]

Hi guys,

        I realy need an answer about the version of TCLXML for cygwin. I've
looked everywhere, and i've got nothing.

Please help.

abner

[Tclxml-users] Cygwin version...

[Abner J. <ab...@de...>]

Hi,

        I'm trying to install tclxml on cygwin... is it possible? does
anyone have the binaries?

Please help, i'm realy needing them.

Abner Junior.

Re: [Tclxml-users] -xmldeclcommand configuration option

[Thomas M. <mae...@gl...>]

Am Montag, 27. Januar 2003 03.00 schrieben Sie:
> With the change above, it is called using the Tcl parser. However, it i=
s not
> called using expat. =20

I can reproduce it now; thanks.


> Please submit
> a bug report on SourceForge.

Just done - Request ID 675798

--
Thomas

Re: [Tclxml-users] -xmldeclcommand configuration option

[Steve B. <Ste...@zv...>]

Thomas Maeder wrote:
> I am using TclXML 2.5 on Tcl 8.3.5 / tcllib 1.3.
> 
> It seems that neither the Tcl only XML parser nor the expat parser recognize 
> the -xmldeclcommand configuration option.

The Tcl parser does recognise it (I ran my own tests),
see below.

> Running this script
> 
> puts "package loaded: [package require xml]"
> 
> set input {
>     {<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>}
>     {<foo>}
>     {</foo>}
> }
> 
> proc declcmd {version encoding standalone} {
>     puts "decl: version $version encoding $encoding standalone $standalone"
> }
> 
> proc defcmd {event} {
>     puts "def: $event"
> }
> 
> puts "registered parsers: [::xml::parserclass info names]\n"
> 
> set parser [::xml::parser expat]

That should be:

set parser [::xml::parser -parser expat]

> $parser configure -xmldeclcommand declcmd
> $parser configure -defaultcommand defcmd
> $parser parse [join $input \n]
> $parser free
> 
> set parser [::xml::parser tcl]

and similarly:

set parser [::xml::parser -parser tcl]

> $parser configure -xmldeclcommand declcmd
> $parser configure -defaultcommand defcmd
> $parser parse [join $input \n]
> $parser free
> 
> 
> writes
> 
> package loaded: 2.5
> registered parsers: expat tcl
> 
> def: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
> def:
> 
> def: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
> def:
> 
> 
> I'd have expected declcmd to be called, though.

With the change above, it is called using the Tcl parser.
However, it is not called using expat.  Please submit
a bug report on SourceForge.

Cheers,
Steve Ball

-- 
Steve Ball            |   XSLT Standard Library   | Training & Seminars
Zveno Pty Ltd         |     Web Tcl Complete      |   XML XSL Schemas
http://www.zveno.com/ |      TclXML TclDOM        | Tcl, Web Development
Ste...@zv...  +---------------------------+---------------------
Ph. +61 2 6242 4099   |   Mobile (0413) 594 462   | Fax +61 2 6242 4099

[Tclxml-users] -xmldeclcommand configuration option

[Thomas M. <mae...@gl...>]

I am using TclXML 2.5 on Tcl 8.3.5 / tcllib 1.3.

It seems that neither the Tcl only XML parser nor the expat parser recogn=
ize=20
the -xmldeclcommand configuration option.

Running this script

puts "package loaded: [package require xml]"

set input {
    {<?xml version=3D"1.0" encoding=3D"ISO-8859-1"?>}
    {<foo>}
    {</foo>}
}

proc declcmd {version encoding standalone} {
    puts "decl: version $version encoding $encoding standalone $standalon=
e"
}

proc defcmd {event} {
    puts "def: $event"
}

puts "registered parsers: [::xml::parserclass info names]\n"

set parser [::xml::parser expat]
$parser configure -xmldeclcommand declcmd
$parser configure -defaultcommand defcmd
$parser parse [join $input \n]
$parser free

set parser [::xml::parser tcl]
$parser configure -xmldeclcommand declcmd
$parser configure -defaultcommand defcmd
$parser parse [join $input \n]
$parser free


writes

package loaded: 2.5
registered parsers: expat tcl

def: <?xml version=3D"1.0" encoding=3D"ISO-8859-1"?>
def:

def: <?xml version=3D"1.0" encoding=3D"ISO-8859-1"?>
def:


I'd have expected declcmd to be called, though.

--
Thomas

[Tclxml-users] Confusing information in ./configure --help

[Thomas M. <mae...@gl...>]

After some troubles, I have finally managed to install TclXML 2.5 on Tcl =
8.3.5=20
/ tcllib 1.3. One of my problems was the --exec_prefix option to configur=
e.

1. This option is unusual; the usual spelling is --exec-prefix (hyphen in=
stead=20
of underscore)

2. ./configure --help says:

  --prefix=3DPREFIX         install architecture-independent files in PRE=
FIX
                          [/usr/local]
  --exec-prefix=3DEPREFIX   install architecture-dependent files in EPREF=
IX
                          [PREFIX]

suggesting that the option is optional if EPREFIX should be equal to PREF=
IX.

IMHO, --exec_prefix should be renamed to --exec-prefix, and its interpret=
ation=20
should conform to what --help says.

--
Thomas

[Tclxml-users] Re: WAX availability or existence?

[Steve B. <Ste...@zv...>]

Fra...@ce... wrote:
> In many places is mentioned the free XML editor (written in tcl?) WAX. Does
> it really exist? where is it available? which version of tclXML is it  based
> upon? is it purely tcl or includes also some C code and in that case is
> there a dll available for Windows?

waX has its own SourceForge project - waxml.sourceforge.net.
The code is in the CVS repository - you can check it out
anonymously like any other SF project.

There has not been a public release of waX because it has not
been developed to the point where it is usable by mere mortals.
I hope to achieve that sometime this year.  Roy Nurmi and
Johann Tienhaara joined the project last year, and they
are helping to progress the application.

Unfortunately, I've been side-tracked for the last couple of
months (on my "Simple Content Management System") so not
much is happening at the moment.

Eventually, waX will require TclDOM/libxml2 and TclXSLT.
By the time it reaches a publically-releasable state
the underlying C code will be available for Windows,
either as part of ActiveTcl or StarKit.  I'm planning
on distributing it as a StarPack.

Cheers,
Steve Ball

-- 
Steve Ball            |   XSLT Standard Library   | Training & Seminars
Zveno Pty Ltd         |     Web Tcl Complete      |   XML XSL Schemas
http://www.zveno.com/ |      TclXML TclDOM        | Tcl, Web Development
Ste...@zv...  +---------------------------+---------------------
Ph. +61 2 6242 4099   |   Mobile (0413) 594 462   | Fax +61 2 6242 4099

[Tclxml-users] WAX availability or existence?

[<Fra...@ce...>]

Steve,

In many places is mentioned the free XML editor (written in tcl?) WAX. =
Does
it really exist? where is it available? which version of tclXML is it  =
based
upon? is it purely tcl or includes also some C code and in that case is
there a dll available for Windows?

Thanks in advance

Fran=E7ois

[Tclxml-users] Re: tclxml-2.5 binary for W2K?

[Steve B. <Ste...@zv...>]

Burns, Christopher P (Chris) wrote:
> Was wondering if you knew where I could download
> your tclxml-2.5 precompiled for Win2K?

Andreas Kupries has TclXML/expat (along with TclDOM/libxml2
and TclXSLT) built-in with the ActiveState distribution.
I imagine that it will be part of the next release,
but unfortunately is not currently available.

I have cc'd this message to the tclxml-users mailing
list, as someone may have a binary already available.
If so, please contribute the binary to the project
and I will make it available on the SourceForge
downloads area.

[BTW, I could use the binaries myself but I'm one of those
rare people that doesn't use Windows so I do not possess
the capability of doing builds on that platform - you may
have noticed that I make Mac OS X binaries available]

HTHs,
Steve Ball

-- 
Steve Ball            |   XSLT Standard Library   | Training & Seminars
Zveno Pty Ltd         |     Web Tcl Complete      |   XML XSL Schemas
http://www.zveno.com/ |      TclXML TclDOM        | Tcl, Web Development
Ste...@zv...  +---------------------------+---------------------
Ph. +61 2 6242 4099   |   Mobile (0413) 594 462   | Fax +61 2 6242 4099

[Tclxml-users] Re: [tdom] Re: tclDOM or TDOM dilemma on Windows

[Steve B. <Ste...@zv...>]

ro...@po... wrote:
> On  8 Jan, Steve Ball wrote:
>>There's also the issue of support.  Many more developers use
>>libxml2 & libxslt, so it is better tested.
> 
> So you're suggesting, that especially libxslt is more compliant and
> bug free than the tDOM XSLT engine, don't you? For sure you have also
> some hard facts for this, beside the fussy marketing speech? (Visual
> Basic is used by much more developers than tcl and therefor much more
> mature than tcl, or what is the argument?)

No, I don't have a list of compliance test results for each
different processor sitting in front of me.  I base my
"fussy marketing speech" on the observation that libxml2
and libxslt have bindings to (at least) three scripting
languages, Tcl, Perl and Python, and are in use in several
prominent application frameworks, eg AxKit, Gnome,
so it seems obvious that many more developers are hammering
these libraries than just those doing Tcl development.
More developers => more bug reports => more bug fixes

> Before the release of the current tDOM version 0.7.5 I run it against
> a suite of much more than 1500 xslt test files. The suite is compiled
> together from the (enormous) test suite of the xalan XSLT project
> (this alone are almost 1300 texts), the NIST XSLT test suite (more
> than 170 tests), the XSLTmark test suite, the libxslt tests, the
> various examples of Michael Kays "XSLT - Programmer Reference" book
> and a couple of other sources. I compared the tDOM results with the
> libxslt-1.0.22 results - the current version at that time, they are at
> libxslt-1.0.23 now - (and saxon, xalan-j and sablotron btw). I found,
> that libxslt had notable more failures than the tDOM xslt engine.
> 
> Don't get that wrong. I confirm, that libxslt provides a good, almost
> compliant XSLT processor. (As, for example also the sablotron folks
> do.) Most of the libxslt failures, that I found, are related to not so
> common XSLT features or constructs and therefor libxslt will do most
> of the 'real world' XSLT right. 
 >
> But I state, that tDOM also provides a good, almost compliant
> XSLT processor - and probably a bit better, at least in some areas,
> than libxslt. Steve, please would you share the test results with us,
> that make you belive, it isn't this way?

At no point did I state that tDOM was *not* a compliant
XSLT processor.  Alot of people seem to be getting good
results from tDOM - that's great.

>>I have no
>>comparative usage numbers for TclDOM/TclXSLT vs tDOM,
>>but you can check for yourself on the SourceForge project
>>page.
> 
> The sourceforge tDOM project is only a placeholder, registered by
> Jochen more than 2 years ago, to protect the project name. Since the
> tDOM sourceforge project space was never used, it suggest, that there
> is no code and no users. Both is definitely not true ;-)

Again, I'm not saying that - it is clearly not the case.
I'm saying that it does not seem possible at this time
to get *comparative* usage data.  The SF system collects
this kind of data, so that makes it easier for the
TclXML project.

>>As far as performance goes, tDOM may be slightly better in
>>some circumstances but compared to the performance of Java tools
>>the difference is trivial.
> 
> Hm. Steve, would you please name only a view cirumstances, for which
> tDOM isn't _at least_ slightly better than TclXML etc., as far as
> performance goes? ;-)

The point I am trying to make is when one compares the
performance of processors written in C to those written
in Java there can be a 3-4 times improvement.
A performance gain of 10-25% when using tDOM vs libxslt
is not significant *when compared to the gain over Java*.

If some people are really concerned about squeezing an
extra 10% performance out of their XSLT stylesheets
then they should probably look at their algorithms
and choice of technology rather than choice of
processing engine.  IOW, XSLT is built for comfort,
not for speed (like Tcl really).

 > What speed difference could be named 'trivial' depends of course on
 > the viewpoint. But I, for once, would not confirm, that the speed
 > difference between tDOM and TclXML compaired with the speed of Java
 > tools is completely "trivial". If the java virtual machine has started
 > and the classes are already loaded (the java virtual machine has
 > 'warmed up'), the rough numbers are as following: Given a modern, fast
 > Java dom implementation, libxml is around two times faster, tDOM with
 > the expat parser 3 times and tDOM with the simple parser 4 times.

I'm not sure what you're measuring here - parsing time or
processing time?  In most of my applications, the time taken
to parse a document is trivial compared to the processing
time taken by the DOM app or XSLT stylesheet.

> Another point is the memory footprint. A DOM tree needs a lot of
> memory. A libxml DOM tree needs typically more than double as much
> memory, as the tDOM DOM tree of the same document. For example, a just
> chosen random 17 MByte XML file needs clearly more than 100 MByte
> memory, as libxml DOM tree, and less then 50 MByte as tDOM DOM tree
> (numbers measured at linux). Sure, if you process only small XML files
> on a box with reasonable memory, that may not bother you much.

Well, I'd certainly dispute that claim.

I just created a 17MB test document - 17K elements each containing
1KB of text.  After parsing it into a libxml2 DOM tree the memory
usage was approx. 20MB.  Of course, different kinds of documents
will require different amounts of memory.  This was measured
on a Mac OS X system.  I'd say that's a modest overhead for
the DOM structures.

> Both the raw xml parsing/DOM building speed and the memory footprint
> are results with only moderate variations. It don't really matter,
> what half-way realistic XML document you use, tDOM is faster, while
> using lesser memory.

I'm not disputing that tDOM is faster, but I'd need more
convincing that it uses (significantly) less memory.

> XPath and XSLT are much more complicated. There is clearly a greater
> variation of the results. But the overall picture - my results, please
> provide your own - is pretty clear: tDOM xslt is notable faster than
> libxslt. I would say XSLT benchmarking is still in its first
> days. XSLTmark (http://www.datapower.com/xml_community/xsltmark.html)
> is probably the most known XSLT benchmark suite, at the moment. This
> are 40 different Stylesheets, which run 10 to 100 times against
> different source documents from a few bytes up to 2 MBytes. With the
> default test configuration, the XSLT transformation time sums up for
> libxslt to around 140 seconds and for tDOM to 75 seconds.

I'd like to see more information about the methodology used,
see below.

> My to some degree extensive XSLT benchmarking in deed shows, that
> libxslt is for example mostly much faster than sablotron - well,
> sablotron isn't that bad in compliance, as already said, but that the
> sablotron folks claim at there homepage: "Sablotron is a fast [XSLT
> processor]" is ludicrous and only possible, because nobody measures by
> itself --- do you (and especially Steve: do you)? I found tDOMs xslt
> engine often cleary faster than libxslt and only very seldom the other
> way around. And there's a hole group of stylesheet/(bigger) document
> combinations, for which libxslt is ridiculous slow.

Perhaps you should report that to Daniel Veillard.

> If you like more 'real live' numbers, Simon Hefi reports
> (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tdom/message/286), that tDOM transforms
> the almost 1,7 MByte DocBook document Securing.xml more than double as
> fast as libxslt. At my a bit ancient box, libxslt (xsltproc) needs
> more than 50 seconds for that transformation, and tDOM only 25. By the
> way, a "warmed up" saxon also needs only a bit more than 60
> seconds. In such cases. I think it would be possible to say: the speed
> difference of libxslt to Java tools is "trivial", compared with the
> tDOM speed.

I have seen Simon's report.  The tests were not extensive,
but more importantly (as I recall) the methodology used
was dubious.  He ran the tests using a "warmed-up" tDOM
within a Websh environment, whereas the libxslt processor
started cold.  Most of the documents tested were fairly
small, so the startup time of the libxslt process
plus parse time would have been significant.  The Websh/tDOM
process would not have had those overheads.

Of course, for the large, 1.7MB, document these overheads
are far less significant.  There may be many reasons as
to why tDOM has a 2X performance gain over libxslt,
but there would have to be more extensive test suite
than just one document to draw the conclusion that
tDOM is always that much faster than libxslt.

>>Finally, at least for TclXML & TclDOM there is a pure-Tcl
>>version for completely compilation-free deployment.
> 
> It should not be suppressed, that especially the scripted TclDOM has
> its limits with respect to speed and its immens memory demand.

The pure-Tcl implementation of TclXMl and TclDOM are
around 20 times slower than any C version.  That's no
secret.  It often amazes me that anyone has any
interest in these implementations at all (I originally
wrote them purely for research purposes), but it
turns out that being able to use an extension-free
XML environment is very useful for some purposes.

> Don't get me wrong. For private use and a small 'content management
> system' I guess both packages are probably very well suited; choose,
> whatever you like more. Steve, greased with the words, as it is, has
> in deed some tutorial material, which may help you on track. For sure
> an additional convenient plus for TclXML et al. is, that it is
> included in the ActiveTcl (for windows: probably not so far in the
> future) distributions. The long mail is mostly because Steve tends to
> get the numbers a bit wrong.

I thought the long mail was because the tDOM implementors
seem to have a big chip on their shoulders and feel the
need to prove something... [sorry folks - I feel myself starting
to rant and I shouldn't succumb to the temptation to
make personal attacks]

For quite some time (three years?) I've been frustrated
at the lack of cooperation between these two projects.
It seems pointless to force developers to make a choice,
but I've long since given up trying to reconcile them.

Steve Ball

-- 
Steve Ball            |   XSLT Standard Library   | Training & Seminars
Zveno Pty Ltd         |     Web Tcl Complete      |   XML XSL Schemas
http://www.zveno.com/ |      TclXML TclDOM        | Tcl, Web Development
Ste...@zv...  +---------------------------+---------------------
Ph. +61 2 6242 4099   |   Mobile (0413) 594 462   | Fax +61 2 6242 4099

Re: [Tclxml-users] Re: [tdom] Re: tclDOM or TDOM dilemma on Windows

[Steve B. <Ste...@zv...>]

Well, I'm certainly glad Chuck and Michael enjoyed
the tutorial... tell your friends and neighbours!

I believe the build system is considerably improved
since September, mainly thanks to the efforts of
Andreas Kupries.  Also, pre-compiled binaries will
be appearing in various distributions soon so it
should be much easier for people to get started with
the TclXML family of packages.

I'm interested in getting folk's feedback on the
syntax/ease-of-use aspect.  If you find the TclDOM or
TclXSLT script API difficult to use (or understand),
or if you find the tDOM API better then please let
me know.  Design work on version 3.0 of these packages
is just starting so now is the time to propose changes.

Cheers,
Steve Ball

Michael A. Cleverly wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, chuck_ferril <chu...@ya...> wrote:
> 
>>My experience with both packages came while attending the Tcl'2002    
>>conference a few months ago.  
> 
>>So from my point of view, tDOM was the answer since I needed XSLT.   
>>And for anyone that has a chance to attend one of Steve's XML  
>>presentations, don't miss it.  XML was a big 'so what' to me until  
>>those sessions.  I only wish the tools he used were easier to build  
>>and get working.   
> 
>>I recommend anyone try both for a short test and go with whatever  
>>you feel most comfortable with.  
> 
> I'm in complete agreement with Chuck.  I also attended Steve's tutorials
> at the Tcl 2002 conference, and found them to be very enlightening.  I've
> ended up using tDOM since it was so much easier to get working with it,
> than fighting the build process for the TclXML packages.
> 
> I've been thoroughly impressed with tDOM, it's speed, it's
> syntax/ease-of-use, and the fact that it can be made to work out of the
> box as an AOLserver shared library.
> 
> It's nice to have choices.  I'd suggest people do like Chuck suggested, 
> and give each a try, and then go with either and/or both based on your own 
> experiences.
> 
> Michael
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
> SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
> http://www.vasoftware.com
> _______________________________________________
> Tclxml-users mailing list
> Tcl...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tclxml-users

-- 
Steve Ball            |   XSLT Standard Library   | Training & Seminars
Zveno Pty Ltd         |     Web Tcl Complete      |   XML XSL Schemas
http://www.zveno.com/ |      TclXML TclDOM        | Tcl, Web Development
Ste...@zv...  +---------------------------+---------------------
Ph. +61 2 6242 4099   |   Mobile (0413) 594 462   | Fax +61 2 6242 4099

[Tclxml-users] Re: [tdom] Re: tclDOM or TDOM dilemma on Windows

[Michael A. C. <mi...@cl...>]

On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, chuck_ferril <chu...@ya...> wrote:

> My experience with both packages came while attending the Tcl'2002    
> conference a few months ago.  

> So from my point of view, tDOM was the answer since I needed XSLT.   
> And for anyone that has a chance to attend one of Steve's XML  
> presentations, don't miss it.  XML was a big 'so what' to me until  
> those sessions.  I only wish the tools he used were easier to build  
> and get working.   
   
> I recommend anyone try both for a short test and go with whatever  
> you feel most comfortable with.  

I'm in complete agreement with Chuck.  I also attended Steve's tutorials
at the Tcl 2002 conference, and found them to be very enlightening.  I've
ended up using tDOM since it was so much easier to get working with it,
than fighting the build process for the TclXML packages.

I've been thoroughly impressed with tDOM, it's speed, it's
syntax/ease-of-use, and the fact that it can be made to work out of the
box as an AOLserver shared library.

It's nice to have choices.  I'd suggest people do like Chuck suggested, 
and give each a try, and then go with either and/or both based on your own 
experiences.

Michael

RE: [Tclxml-users] problems configuring the newest tclxml

[Jeffrey H. <je...@Ac...>]

> From: Andreas Kupries
> > Larry W. Virden wrote:
> > I have found that one needs to specify *both* the --prefix and
> > --exec_prefix options to get it all to work properly.  Don't know
> > why exactly, and Andreas has gone on holidays so we can't ask him
> > until January.
> 
> I don't know either. I believe this is somehow embedded in the
> configure macros Jeff created for TEA 2.

That should not be true in TEA2.  You should need at least --prefix
OR --with-tcl (and --with-tk for Tk-based apps), and you only need
--exec-prefix if that is different.  I happen to always use both
--prefix and --exec-prefix for compiling Tcl and Tk, but only the
--with* options for compiling extensions.

  Jeff Hobbs                     The Tcl Guy
  Senior Developer               http://www.ActiveState.com/