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

[Christophe de VIENNE <cdevienne alphacent com>]

Stefan Seefeld wrote:

> Christophe de Vienne wrote:
>
> > Thomas Jarosch wrote:
> >
> > > 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 certainly remember, and that's partly why I'm asking, to see if the 
choice we made is good for the majority of users.

> 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.

Can I see you work somewhere ? Although we choosed not to do that, I'm 
interested to see how it looks like.

> 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.


You're probably rigth. Moreover we're looking more for stability right 
now. Features will be added of course, but we'll keep API compatibility 
as much as we decently can.


Regards,

Christophe