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

[Rob Richards <rrichards ctindustries net>]

cazic gmx net wrote:
> > The one question I have regards the function signatures. I'm assuming 
> > that the ones with leading comments are the ones to be exposed 
> > (everything marked static right now). For the options parameter. Are 
> > options going to be used often? If not, it might make sense to make them 
> > part of the xmlDOMWrapCtxt structure.
> >     
>
> I marked it optional, since we do not yet use the context in those
> functions. But this is just an initial design, and it might end up being
> mandatory at the end.
>   
No problem. Wasn't sure if you already had something in mind here or it 
was just for potential future use.
>   
> > Also, since the context is optional, it might make sense to pass it last 
> > (the functions then are very close to the existing libxml2 functions.
> >     
>
> I wanted the arg-list to be similiar to the other xmlDOMWrapXXX functions.
>   
Again not a problem. Was just brainstorming and threw that out there.
>   
> > I would also eleminate the doc parameter in most cases. This should be 
> > able to be determined from the node being passed in (at least for these 
> >     
>
> OK, for me.
>
>   
> > functions). Lastly, if the function is only returning a 0 or -1, would 
> > it make more sense to just return the actual attribute (again similar to 
> > the libxml2 function).
> > i.e.:
> > xmlAttrPtr
> > xmlDOMWrapSetAttr(xmlNodePtr owner,
> >           xmlNsPtr ns,
> >           const xmlChar *name, const xmlChar *value,
> >           xmlDOMWrapCtxtPtr ctxt)
> >     
>
> Do we know how we will end up in the end? We'll lose flexibility for return
> values.
>   
It really depends upon how much a function is going to be implementing 
the DOM function and what the wrapper is to be responsible for (see next 
comments for more). This could also be another potential use of the 
xmlDOMWrapCtxt structure. The errors in DOM are pretty standard and if a 
wrapper wanted to know specific errors it could get it from the 
structure. Just an idea as it's just my personal preference for 
simplified function signatures when possible - easier to remember :)
>   
> > Moving the context paramter is not a big deal as I see it is already 
> > passed first in other of the xmlDOM... functions. Just thought it would 
> > make the mapping to the existing similar functions easier if possible.
> >     
>
> It recurred to me that we need also a check for fixed attributes being tried
> to be modified/replaced, in which case it would be nice to return the
> corresponding DOM error NO_MODIFICATION_ALLOWED_ERR.
> Although the INUSE_ATTRIBUTE_ERR can be handled on the wrapper's side, do
> you think we should add that as well?
>   
Undecided at the moment. What I'm afraid of is that a DOM implementation 
in the library will continually grow to support all the DOM nuances 
causing the lib to get even larger. If I switch over to using the DOM 
functions and a configure switch is added to allow for the DOM functions 
to be disabled when building the library, I am just worried that some 
distros may disable the functionality by default. If the new 
functionality is kept at a minimum and the wrapper side handles some of 
the burden there is probably a much lower possibility of the 
functionality being disabled.

Rob