Re: [libxml++] libxml++ future

[Christophe de VIENNE <cdevienne alphacent com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Le Vendredi 26 Septembre 2003 08:21, Murray Cumming Comneon com a écrit :
> > From: Christophe de Vienne [mailto:cdevienne alphacent com]
> > **************************************************************************
> > 1 - postfix private members intead of prefixing them with an
> > underscore
> >
> > target version : 1.0
> >
> > The ISO c++ standart reserve names with a leading underscore to the
> > implemention. One shouldn't use some.
> > Although there is no risk of real problem with that, I think
> > it would be
> > cleaner.
>
> Fine by me.

OK. I'll do this soon.



> > **************************************************************************
> > 3 - wrap xmlTextReader
> >
> > target version : 1.0 ?

> For this and the xmlIO thing, please be very careful about giving us aims
> that can not be achieved quickly. API stability is also very useful, and we
> can do difficult things in a later version if necessary. In my opinion, we
> should have frozen alread (though it's lucky that we got the namespace
> support recently). I am only waiting for a first release of glibmm 2.3.0,
> so that we can start libxml++ 1.1 at the same time.
>

You're right, the API has to be stable. However the xmlIO thing and TextReader 
interface will normaly not change the existing API, just add new things. 
About TextReader I want to wait to see if it's mature enough to be included 
in 1.0 (that's why I put a '?'), but I think it can be if I work on it soon 
enough.

> > **************************************************************************
> > 5 - use a string type which handle UTF-8
> >
> > target version : 1.2
> >
> >
> > - - Is this solution acceptable for you ?
> > - - Is there any issue about LGPL with template libraries ?
>
> No, I think this is ridiculous and doesn't solve any real problem.

Ok. The more I think about it, the more I think the work overhead about 
implementing templated classes is not justified by only the possibility to 
use different string type : The main argument I find is that we aim to be a 
thin wrapper around libxml, not add extra functionnality. libxml use xmlChar, 
we should use one string type, that's all. However the possibilities offered 
by templates are great. Do they correspond to real needs ? I'm less sure than 
previously.

>
> >
> > **************************************************************
> > *****************
> > 7 - make a better XPath support
> >
> > target version : ?
> >
> > I'm not very familiar with XPath. I don't know if the current
> > support we have
> > is enough for common uses. Any feedback on this would be appreciated.
>
> Until someone says that it isn't good enough, I'll assume that it's good
> enough.
>

Agree.

> > **************************************************************
> > *****************
> > The end.
> >
> > If you reached this point, thank you for reading :-)
> >
> > I'm waiting forward for comments/ideas,
>
> Well done Christophe.
>

Thanks :-)


Cheers,

Christophe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/dBzQB+sU3TyOQjARAi1HAKDX/Am3aDenP9Vjh00pX+R6b3iqAwCfeUB8
haQsUTaRHpASmbV6XgYLkAA=
=rUQY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----