From: Daryle Walker (darylew_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-11-08 08:07:21
On 11/2/05 8:08 AM, "Stefan Seefeld" <seefeld_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Daryle Walker wrote:
>> On 10/31/05 10:44 PM, "Stefan Seefeld" <seefeld_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> Here are some highlights:
>>> * User access dom nodes as <>_ptr objects. All memory management is
>>> hidden, and only requires the document itself to be managed.
>> I hope there's support for custom allocators somewhere in there. (Maybe
>> indirectly through the string type's allocator.)
> Not really, as the backend does the memory allocation. Here again, as
> with the internal character encoding: would we impose any fine-grained
> user control on these implementation policies, we would reduce the set
> of potential backends considerably.
> (libxml2 lets 'users' define their own memory (de)allocators, but that
> is a configuration choice, and I'm not sure whether we want to bind
> so tightly to that.)
Why would we use a back end? Why bother making a Boost XML library if we're
just going to make a wrapper that punts to a XML-specific open-source
library? If we're not going to just mirror the back end, then we going to
have to configure translations between our C++ front end and the back end,
which could include allocations.
-- Daryle Walker Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie darylew AT hotmail DOT com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk