Re: [libxml++] Adding STL-container-like methods to Node instead of returning container instance (xmlwrapp)

[murrayc t-online de (Murray Cumming)]

On Fri, 2003-02-07 at 15:22, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> Murray Cumming wrote:
> > Stefan, maybe you should look at what xmlwrapp does for this:
> > http://pmade.org/pjones/software/xmlwrapp/index.html
> > 
> > It probably does similar things, though I doubt that we want libxml++ to
> > become quite as STL-like and un-DOM-like as that.
> 
> can yo elaborate why you think that 'STL-like' and 'DOM-like' are
> mutually exclusive ?

I didn't say that they are. But xmlwrapp seems to be
a) more STL-like
and
b) less DOM-like.

Actually they are slightly mutually exclusive because the DOM
specification specifies an API which is not STL-like.

> I sure aim for an API that is as intuitive to C++ programmers as 
> possible, yet provides the means to expose a DOM API if we want.
> 
> > By the way, the
> > xmlwrapp author is interested in merging projects eventually, though
> > nobody has done any analysis of that yet.
> 
> I'v looked at xmlwrapp a while ago. And in fact I'v kind of used its
> approach, until I run into DV's _private member, and detected how simple
> life can be with that :-)
> 
> We may look at it again, specifically in terms of the API. But as far
> as the implementation goes, I think our current approach is the best we
> can ever get.

Sure. I was more interested in the API, specifically with regard to the
subject of this email.

-- 
Murray Cumming
murray usa net
www.murrayc.com