Re: [xml] GHashTable as replacement of built-in xmlHashTable

[Sander Vesik <Sander Vesik Sun COM>]

On Sun, 13 Apr 2003, Bjorn Reese wrote:

> Kang Jeong-Hee wrote:
> > GLib 2 provide a hash table; GHashTable.
> > Its APIs are nearly equivalent to ones of xmlHashTable.
> >
> > I propose GHashTable as replacement of xmlHashTable
> > and removing hash.[ch] from libxml2.
>
> Why?
>
> Does xmlHashTable cause problems? Does GHashTable provide added
> benefits (functionality, performance, maintainability?)
>
> GHashTable is dependent on other parts of glib and is distributed
> under a different license than libxml. How do you plan to address
> these issues?

Well, grafting a 'three keys per one data item' style api that libxml
presently has on top of ghashtable would look pretty ugly and quite
probably cause loss of speed. It is also (iirc) less flexible with user
functions for freeing keys and data items. 

Oh, and glib is presently not yet proven to be anywhere as portable as
libxml2, so adding glib as a dpendnency would have some undesirable side
effects anyways.

        Sander

        Humans love to categorize and organize things. We break up time into
        hours, days and years. Everything has to have a name, a history, an
        understanding of it's origins and must be indexed somewhere on Google.