From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-08 08:40:38
Jon Radoff wrote:
> 2) Using another library for the under-the-hood technology seems reasonable, considering the amount of effort involved in getting all of the features of XML working. We currently use Expat in our products, simply because it's easy to incorporate, but of course that wouldn't be adequate for many of the recent features of XML. Libxml strikes me as perhaps the lesser of evils, since it has the needed support, isn't hard to build (at least compared to libxml++) and the binary libraries are easy to obtain.
> 3) I think DOM support is critical. There's ample C++ libraries and wrappers for doing non-DOM XML manipulations, but there doesn't seem to be adequate options for good DOM libraries. It seems to me that if the library implementor doesn't tackle the challenge of making a nice C++ DOM class interface, then I'm left with the impression that boost wouldn't really be adding anything new to the world.
Could you detail a bit what you mean by 'DOM' and 'DOM-like' here ? We all are probably thinking of
some tree structure that can be navigated, queried, etc..
However, some have already argued that the DOM API as it exists for Java is inappropriate for C++,
or even that the DOM API is already conceptually broken.
Thus, I think it might help if we could detail a bit what it should and should not be, and what
use cases it should support.
-- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk