Re: [libxml++] templates v. library

[Stefan Seefeld <seefeld sympatico ca>]

Murray Cumming wrote:
> I was wondering, if we decide that it makes sense for libxml++ to become a set
> of templates in headers instead of a library, in order to allow a choice of
> string classes, why doesn't the same argument apply to all other libraries,
> such as gtkmm? Is it just that libxml++ is smaller? If so, does anyone
> advocate that all small C++ libraries should actually be templates, given that
> almost all C++ libraries will tend to need a utf8 string class? I don't mean
> to sound rude - I'm just trying to be logical.

all C++ libraries tend to need utf8 ? I can't second that.

The only domains where support for i18n seems rather obvious to me
are data management (as long as text is involved) and GUI. Most C++
stuff I work on is unrelated to either.

But still, even if i18n is involved, I don't think there is a clear and 
single answer to this question. It is, as we all agree, always a
tradeoff.
Templates don't scale very well to large-scale frameworks with
heavy-weight component models, where you probably want late (runtime)
binding. Compile-time binding is good for small and well-focussed APIs.

Regards,
		Stefan