Re: [xml] modifying tree and attributes

[Rob Richards <rrichards ctindustries net>]

Daniel Veillard wrote:

>  I would say the library should be made as resilient as possible.
>  
I'm just a little puzzled so wanted to get some clarification. Getting a 
patch together  - so far it stands as (and yes all applicable tests pass 
for both libs) : http://www.ctindustries.net/libxml/tree.c.diff.txt

Did a search on xmlAddChild to find out why it doesnt perform unlink and 
came across:
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/xml/2003-February/msg00009.html

Now, like the changes in my patch, of course the behavior will change 
(prevent tree corruption and some memleaks) which is what adding unlink 
would do in addchild.

My confusion comes back to the resilient vs. caller responsibility issue.

Thanks,

Rob