Re: [xml] tracking libxml's internal node creation / destruction?

[Luca Padovani <lpadovan cs unibo it>]

On Wed, 2003-01-01 at 21:56, Daniel Veillard wrote:
>   libxml3 may never show up. 

this comes as a surprise to me. I think there are a number of
improvements that both libxml2 and libxslt would benefit from if
implemented. Or does it mean you're going to dismiss maintenance of
libxml?

> except for a single reject applied cleanly), but there is probably a 
> number of places in the code where objects may be allocated or deallocated
> which won't generate the expected callback. 

this is already a good news though. I'm anxious to play with these
callback functions and possibly provide useful feedback.

> The danger is obviously that by relying on those callbacks, if some are missing
> the associated wrappers may fail to function correctly or insidiously leak
> memory, I think to make this really usable this will need quite a bit of
> testing, the coverage can probably be automated in a large part,

right. In particular for Gdome2 and other bindings we found particularly
useful the "valgrind" tool which helps finding memory leaks.

Cheers,
-- luca