Boost logo

Boost :

From: Daniel Wesslén (daniel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-24 10:12:40

Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
> Daniel Wesslén wrote:
>> Given that property_tree isn't meant to be a XML library as such, I
>> don't think there is much need. I agree that is should be clearly
>> documented which features of XML the parser can handle. After that is
>> done, there is no reason not to add features that can fit in the tree.
>> I was simply suggesting that when we get a full-featured parser, then
>> that one should be used for property_tree as well, to support as much of
>> XML as possible within the constraints of what's feasible to store in
>> the ptree.
> Ok, I see. But some users might prefer the current parser because it is
> more efficient when it doesn't need to worry about advanced features.
> Those users would then pay when the parser is replaced.

Ah. In that case I agree with you.

I'd like to have both available, but at some point a line has to be
drawn, and that place may well be before adding two XML parsers to
ptree. Writing a translator from a W3DOM or other XML representation to
a ptree should be trivial in any case, and could be provided as an
example if nothing else.

Daniel Wesslén

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at