Re: [libxml++] LibXML++ Min Requirements/ diff between 1 & 2.7?

[Stefan Seefeld <seefeld sympatico ca>]

Christophe de Vienne wrote:
> Thomas Jarosch wrote:
>
> > > I personnaly did not try to extract Glib::ustring. Can't help on this.
> > > However you don't need GTK+ to install glibmm-2.4, which depends only on
> > > glib. This make the dependencies much lower than you suggest.
> > > FYI:
> > > http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=3923642&forum_id=127 
> > >
> > >   
> >
> >
> > We do this in our custom RPM specfile:
> >  
>
> [snip big patch to get rid of Glib::ustring]
>
> Is there a particular reason for you to get rid if Glib::ustring ?
>
> Is there other people doing such a thing ?

You may remember our discussion about this very point quite a while ago.
I was in a similar position, i.e. the company for which I was looking for
a solution was already using qt which has its own unicode API.

I thus suggested to parametrize the code to make the (unicode) string type
a template parameter and the conversion between it and the internal xmlChar
type a template 'trait'.
Apparently everybody but me was happy with the move to hook libxml++ up
with glib, so I followed my suggested design on my own. The result ended
eventually on the boost.org list as a suggestion, but unfortunately I
didn't yet manage to finish a revision that follows all the (very good)
criticism I received on the boost mailing list.

I still believe that a generic C++ API for xml would be a very useful
thing, but unfortunately I doubt for various reasons that libxml++
in its current design can play this role.

Regards,
		Stefan