From: Phil Endecott (spam_from_boost_dev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-07-10 15:00:52
Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> Phil Endecott wrote:
>> Does anyone have any experience of how little overhead could be
>> involved in going from
> That is pure syntactic sugar. Yes, this can be done using some proxy
> classes. Why should we worry about such details at this point ?
The syntax is important. What are the requirements from an XML
library? I would argue that an important requirement is an
easy-to-learn syntax. Many potential users will be familiar with other
libraries and if they can apply that experience to a new library it
will make it quicker and easier to use. Hence my original argument
that there are two justifiable APIs: one that is familiar to people who
know the DOM syntax, and one that is familiar to people who know the
Of course there are other potential requirements. Performance is one,
but my (humble) opinion is that a _Boost_ XML library would focus more
towards an STL-like API and less towards performance and "thin-ness".
I'm sorry that my comments are sounding negative. I have used
xmlwrapp, which is similar to your library, and it did a good job. I
have no doubt that your library would be useful. But you haven't
convinced me that your API, or the approach of wrapping libxml2, is
the right style for Boost specificially.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk