[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
RE: [xml] Feature request: callbacks
- From: "Alfred Reibenschuh" <alfred reibenschu chello at>
- To: <veillard redhat com>
- Cc: "Uwe Steinmann" <steinm majestix fernuni-hagen de>, <xml gnome org>
- Subject: RE: [xml] Feature request: callbacks
- Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 12:47:41 +0100
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Veillard [mailto:veillard redhat com]
> Subject: Re: [xml] Feature request: callbacks
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 11:02:04AM +0100, Alfred Reibenschuh wrote:
> > hi!
> >
> > adding callback for tree-changes seams to be a good thing to do,
> > but then with a more global approach -- having callbacks for
> > creation, change and deletion of nodes globally per tree
> > and change and deletion callbacks per node.
>
> yes, that's what I was thinking. Except I don't perceive the difference
> you make w.r.t. per node or per tree. Could you elaborate ?
ahmm ... robert pointed that out in his email ... let me sum it up as i see this:
having a callback structure at node, document and application-level like:
struct {
int xmlCallbackStackLevel;
void * xmlTreeChangeCallbackStack[];
}
whereas the first pointer registered in xmlTreeChangeCallbackStack at node-level
would be the callback-handler for the document-level and the first pointer registered
at document-level would be the callback-handler for the application-level
and the first pointer registered at application-level would be libxml's own handler
or NULL whichever is preferable
if a node is changed/deleted/.... the callbacks are called in descending order
on the node, the first callback of the node then calls all the document-callbacks
etc, etc ...
> - Callback signature:
> a few week ago I would have used
> void (*xmlTreeChangeCallback) (xmlNodePtr node);
> but it's clear that Perl binding would require something like
> void (*xmlTreeChangeCallback) (void *user_data, xmlNodePtr node);
> is that sufficient ? I assume user_data would be registered at
> the same time as the set of callbacks.
definitely "void (*xmlTreeChangeCallback) (void *user_data, xmlNodePtr node)",
since that seems to me just what perl and php need :)
> > ( users should then be required to call the change-callback
> > on the completion of a change to a node )
>
> Hum, that is application dependant ... what I want to define
> is the library behaviour and not step on the toes of the application
> writer.
just forget it then ...
> <shame>
> Euro's one or dollar's ?
> </shame>
<pride type="assuring" lang="de_AT">
it's the &Euro; one :)
</pride>
-- Alfred Reibenschuh
(Khelben Blackstaff)
linux geek, | Sometimes I hear voices in my head , telling me to do
perl monger, | strange things, but I always wonder if that's just me
roleplayer | thinking about things I really want to do anyway. Why
& sf-fanatic | do the voices never say, "Your dosage needs adjustment"?
look @ http://penguin.at0.net/~fredo/
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]