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 15:45, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> Murray Cumming wrote:
> 
> >>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.
> 
> oh, I agree. That's probably because all the DOM and related APIs were
> crafted with java in mind. Still I don't see a problem. The (proposed)
> C++ API is more low level, so we could put a 'DOM API wrapper' on top
> if we want. But only providing a DOM API (i.e. not being able to use
> C++-specific idioms) would be wrong, I believe.
> 
> In fact, since we are discussing a DOM API now, please have a look at
> 
> http://xml.apache.org/xerces-c/ApacheDOMC++BindingL2.html
> 
> There is quite a lot to change if we really wanted to be compliant
> with this. I'm not against providing a DOM-C++ API. But again, I think
> we should take advantage of C++ techniques whenever we can, and
> provide the DOM API on top of it.

I don't think we plan to provide an exactly DOM-specification-compliant
API. I think we are on the right track now. Our hierarchy and API is
DOM-like, but is clearly a C++ API. The list archive might show more
discussion about this.

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