From: Damien Fisher (damienf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-08 00:26:02
On 9/8/06, Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> If you've looked at serialization of xml you'll see that it uses spirit and
> an xml grammer derived from a complete one included in the spirit library.
> If you really don't want to re-invent the wheel, they why not just use the
> same approach? The spirit library contains a very complete XML grammer
> already. I don't recall this even having been considered - much less
> rejected. Creating XML is easy. Handling issues of code conversion (e.g.
> from locale specific code to UTF-8 or UTF-16) is easily handled with i/o
> stream facets - some of which are also already available. It is also already
> "Boost Friendly" and works with all boost platforms. It also does most of
> the heavy lifting at compile time - very much in line with other boost
> tools. I can't understand why any other approach would be attractive for
> users of other boost libraries. To me the whole idea is "re-inventing the
The only argument I'd have against it is that libraries like expat and
libxml2 are hugely optimized, and I have found in the past that XML
parsing can account for a significant percentage of runtime in some
Has anyone done any performance benchmarks on the spirit xml parser?
In the past I've found that, past a certain level of complexity,
spirit parsers are substantially slower than handcrafted alternatives,
but that could simply be because I'm not an expert in writing "good"
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk