RE: [xml] Which interfaces should be put into LSB?

["Banginwar, Rajesh" <rajesh banginwar intel com>]

Hi Daniel,
        A clarification is I think needed here.

Historically LSB has been producing headers for application developers
to use. These headers do not include all the interfaces/symbols not part
of LSB (deprecated, experimental etc. as you helped us identify in the
past). The question really is not about interfaces (as that problem is
mostly resolved; so no restart of discussion etc.). Question is around
what headers should an application really use. Let me give an example
here. For GTK libraries there are more than 100 headers supplied by
upstream but only handful (the top level ones) are really meant to be
used by application developers. So what LSB does, is supply only those
headers in its build environment. These headers is what apps will/should
be using anyway as upstream does not guarantee the names and contents of
others will remain same.

Is that the case for libxml2? Or all the 40 or so headers supplied are
meant for application developers? If so, LSB build environment will
provide all those headers minus the ones for non-LSB interfaces. These
headers typically are similar (or same in many cases) to what upstream
provides.

Hope this clarifies. 

Thanks,

-Rajesh

PS. The subject for the thread should be which headers should be visible
to application developers and not interfaces...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xml-bounces gnome org [mailto:xml-bounces gnome org] On Behalf
Of
> Daniel Veillard
> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 8:30 AM
> To: Hisashi T Fujinaka
> Cc: xml gnome org
> Subject: Re: [xml] Which interfaces should be put into LSB?
>
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 08:21:17AM -0800, Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote:
> > It's an added level of abstraction for the benefit of
standardization
> > across distros. We're trying to include the smallest subset of the
> > header information that would be useful to an applications
developer. I
>   You would first have to define what that application does. You will
have
> pain with this I'm afraid, because suddenly any problem with those
headers
> are not problems with libxml2 headers and will have to be dealt by
LSB,
> not by this community. This is forking a subset, with all priviledges
and
> duties associated with it.
>
> > > > each other. Is there a subset of header files that an application
> would
> > > > use so I can just concentrate on those?
> > >
> > > See the previous discussion about this, I have the feeling that we
are
> > > just
> > > starting over from scratch:
> > >  http://mail.gnome.org/archives/xml/2005-September/msg00157.html
> >
> > I guess I missed that message. I thought I saw all the discussions
> > between you and Nilesh, but don't remember this.
>
>   yes this was done really at the beginning of the discussion.
>
> Daniel
>
> --
> Daniel Veillard      | Red Hat http://redhat.com/
> veillard redhat com  | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit
http://xmlsoft.org/
> http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
> _______________________________________________
> xml mailing list, project page  http://xmlsoft.org/
> xml gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/xml