From: Michael Marcin (mmarcin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-07-10 13:19:18
Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> Phil Endecott wrote:
>> Aiming for the minimum overhead in your libxml2 wrapper is a valid
>> objective. But perhaps in that case you should be selling this as a
>> "C++ wrapper for libxml2", not as a "Boost XML library"? I would have
>> thought that a largely backend-independent (or self-contained) library
>> with STL-like interface would be more "Boost-compatible".
> What about my proposed interface is libxml2-specific, prompting you to
> call it a 'libxml2 wrapper' ?
If you are designing the interface to minimize overhead using a libxml2
backend then it will likely incur undue overhead using some other
backend and thus make the library essentially viable only with a libxml2
> Making the wrapper as thin as possible, yet making the API itself
> backend-agnostic (and thus allow it to be reimplemented with other
> backends) is part of the balance I was talking about, too.
In my experience until I actually have 2 or more dissimilar backends
implemented the interface is not implementation agnostic.
If that is truly a goal of this library (and I'm not convinced it needs
to be) then it should actually be exercised.
- Michael Marcin
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk