On Sat, 2005-07-30 at 10:18 -0500, John J. Boyer wrote: > So why should we continue to use gdome2 and not revert back to just > plain libxml2? At the moment, gdome2 appears merely to introduce an > extra layer of complication and linking errors. It is an unusual thing for a seller to explain to one of his customers why he has chosen to buy a given product at a given time in the past :-) One way of finding the reasons why you chose to use gdome2 is perhaps asking yourself why you switched from libxml2 to gdome2 in the first place. If this does not help, here are a few reasons that pop up in my mind: 1) because there are nice C++ and ocaml bindings for gdome2, which are made so that one can comfortably share a DOM document between these two languages 2) because gdome2 implements the events module which may make it easier to detect when a document changes, especially in a cross-language setting 3) because gdome2 uses reference counting so that one does not have to worry when a node or a string has to be freed 4) because gdome2 implements "standard" interfaces so that, in principle, Daniel Veillard is free to rearrange, improve, speed up, optimize, refactor libxml2's implementation and API. Veillard wouldn't have to worry about breaking other people's code, and people using gdome2 wouldn't have to worry about keeping their applications up to date Now I agree that most (all?) of these may be subjective, weak, or just theoretical benefits with respect to what happens in the real world and for sure I wouldn't blame you if you decided to switch back to libxml2. I'll let other users on the list to provide more motivations, if the wish. Cheers, --luca
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part