From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-01-09 09:01:18
Phil Endecott wrote:
> It would be great to see some real-life feature-set, performance and
> usability comparisons of this approach and a more traditional parser.
> (Actually there are some numbers in the rapidxml manual linked above,
> but they don't include libxml2).
Yes, being able to compare side-by-side would certainly help.
Please note that my goal in writing the boost.xml API was not to endorse
one particular backend API or another, but rather to use an existing
library (since, as we discussed numerous times, reinventing the wheel
would be rather naive) and hook it up to a *backend-independent* API.
The API itself must not rely on any backend-specific details !
-- ...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