Re: [xml] Potential wrong usage of xmlIsID() in tree.c

[Kasimier Buchcik <K Buchcik 4commerce de>]

Hi,

On Thu, 2006-02-23 at 17:44 -0500, Rob Richards wrote:
> Daniel Veillard wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 09:49:04PM +0100, cazic gmx net wrote:
> >   
> > > Thinking this over again, plus taking into account what you said about
> > > reusing the code in tree.c, I now think that the DOM-wrapper functions
> > > should better stay in tree.c. An other Idea: what about extending the
> > > arguments of the "internal" functions like you did for xmlCopyPropInternal()
> > > (dunno exactly its name, don't have the code at hand) to take additional
> > > options we need for DOM processing? This way, the normal tree functions
> > > would work their default way and we could add semantics for DOM. So,
> > > together with a narrow entry point like the
> > > xmlDOMWrapDoWhateverIWantWithTheContext(xmlDOMWrapMagicCtxtPtr ctxt)
> > > function, we could all have what we want: a flexible and reusable internal
> > > code base, and two flavours of APIs with different semantics on top; no
> > > special flags on docs; no additional big DOM API inside Libxml2.
> > >     
> >
> >   Fine by me too, more in line with the existing code. The possibility
> > to still be able to configure DOM specific entry point out would be
> > a plus (i.e. --with-tree but --without-dom).
> >
> > Daniel
> >   
> This works for me as well. I think we are on the same wavelength here as 
> this was my third option when I had mentioned a lot of refactoring. I 
> don't like the single entry point either (confusing to use). As long as 
> we re-use existing code where possible I don't have a problem with the 
> additional functions.

[...]

OK. Now that I have disgusted you with the narrow entry point: can we
already foresee which additional xmlDOMWrapXXX functions we need?
I think it would be good for Daniel to see what additional functions
we talk about.

For me the following functions come currently into consideration:
1) an add-child-node function
2) a create-attribute-node function
3) an add-attribute-node-to-elem function
4) a set-attribute-on-elem function
Maybe 3) and 4) could be combined into one function.

Regards,

Kasimier