From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-24 10:20:01
Daniel Wesslén wrote:
> Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
>> 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.
I agree. In fact, I think writing an 'xml parser' that doesn't provide
full XML support is asking for trouble. Before long people will want to
use XML features not supported by such a stripped-down parser, and will
get confused if things break.
It is much cleaner to draw the line such that the property tree library
provides some builtin storage formats (with associated readers and writers),
and an easy way to generate / translate new trees from other formats such as XML.
I still need to get back to my XML DOM library proposal... :-(
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk