Re: [xml] xmlwriter function naming convention

[Daniel Veillard <veillard redhat com>]

On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 12:15:43PM +0100, Mickautsch, Alfred wrote:
> > I propose that xmlFreeTextWriter be renamed to xmlCloseTextWriter. This
> > follows the convention of file I/O through stdio. After fopen(), one
> > uses the fclose() function to flush out the buffers and deallocate
> > resources. One cannot use free() on the file pointer without potentially
> > disasterous results. This is the distinction between a "close" function
> > and a "free" function. A "close" function flushes data from buffers
> > before freeing resources, whereas a "free" function only frees
> > resources.
> 
> Since xmlFreeTextWriter behaves more like a destructor it could as well be called xmlDeleteTextWriter. From another point of view, maybe xmlTextWriterEndDocument should call xmlTextWriterFlush, so there would be no need for xmlOutputBufferClose to flush the buffer itself and the behaviour of xmlFreeTextWriter would match the behaviour you expect from it.
> 

  yes, Flushing at the end of the EndDocument functions would make sense,
could you design such a patch ?

 thanks !

Daniel

-- 
Red Hat Virtualization group http://redhat.com/virtualization/
Daniel Veillard      | virtualization library  http://libvirt.org/
veillard redhat com  | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine  http://rpmfind.net/