Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: [libxml++] UTF8 support]]]]

[Stefan Seefeld <seefeld sympatico ca>]

Murray Cumming wrote:

> I am not being GNOME-centric. Glib::ustring will be available for general
> non-GTK, non-GNOME use.

Isn't Glib a C++ wrapper around the C library 'glib' ? I don't see any
reason why any C++ project should need to use that. I can see why C
people try to reinvent OO techniques instead of learning C++. But
anyways, let's not get more off-topic.

My point is really always the same: I don't want to be tied to any
particular unicode library. I outlined the two major reasons earlier:
Getting undesired dependencies, having to deal with two string APIs
when one should suffice, and finally the performance cost of having to
copy each string twice.

> I don't know of any other C++ unicode string class
> that is not tied to a GUI toolkit.

What does it matter whether the unicode string class is tied to a
particular GUI toolkit or not, as long as I can choose it ? Your point
is valid only under the assumption that libxml++ has to fix the choice.
Then it would indeed be important to be as independent as possible. But
that has nothing to do with my proposal.

> Please try to read my responses instead of
> just repeating your vague accusation that my involvement with GNOME is somehow
> a disadvantage to you.

I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm just suggesting that your
preference for using Glib::ustring for libxml++ is due to your bias. I
don't think you can refute that that easily.

And I called you 'GNOME centric' because you have been telling me again
and again that you can't imagine anybody wanting to use any unicode
library but Glib. Hell, I didn't even know about Glib::ustring's
existence untill you mentioned it to me !

> Yes, performance is the only issue that I can think of. Luckily I can sidestep
> that with my usual "profile-before-optimising" argument.

I mentioned (repeatedly) two other (to me obvious) arguments. What about
them ?


> glibmm requires only glib. That's really not very much, particularly as every
> single linux and solaris installation will have glib installed in the near
> future, and there's a high chance that the same will be true of glibmm.

*sigh*. I'm developing things *right now* on linux and irix (and there
are lots of other platforms I want it to run, too, such as *bsd,
windows, etc.). And our quality management protocols require me to make
the dependencies explicit, meaning I even have to package libxml2 myself
and ship it with the distribution. I just don't *want* to be dependant
on anything that's not strictly necessary !

> Given
> your slightly irrational fear of glib I'm surprised that you don't object to
> our use of pkg-config too as that was also produced by people involved with
> GNOME.

Talk about irrational arguments. Now you are putting words into my
mouth. I don't have a problem with 'people involved with GNOME'. I don't
care. Please stop with these childish arguments.

Anyways, this thread has already taken way too much time. Time I should
be spending on more productive work. I have made my point, now you as
the self-acclaimed 'lead developer' have to choose the direction for
libxml++. Good luck !

Regards,
		Stefan