Re: What to do in order to make the gnome development platform rock.

[Daniel Veillard <veillard redhat com>]

On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 03:11:48PM +0100, Sander Vesik wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2001, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 02:13:38PM +0100, Sander Vesik wrote:
> > > > org.gnome.xml                           - libxml (if it makes sence to
> > > > bind)
> > > 
> > > It does, except not in this way. The way that would make sense to have a
> > > binding for libxml/libxslt would be a wrapper that would allow it to be
> > > used as a "standard" sax/dom parser a'la xerces/xalan. If you can't do
> > > that, there is no point in doing the binding. 
> > 
> > yes there is because lib2xml/libxslt API is a very large superset of what's
> > available with SAX/DOM. Xalan implements a number of extensions too, they
> > didn't restrict them to those API. And the Java people seems to anyway try
> > to push for yet one more Java XML tree interface. I really don't see why 
> > people should not write Java wrappers for libxml/libxslt. And as maintainer
> > I tell they can go ahead, I'm just not personally interested in the effort.
> > 
> 
> I think there is a difference between 'would allow it to be used' and
> 'forces it to be used'. it would be IMVHO a pity if the wrapping didn't
> support the "standard" interfaces or wasn't uasable with them.

  I don't say people should not provide standard wrappers. But I'm saying they
should not feel constrained to them. Don't get me wrong, I believe in standards,
interop, etc., but sometimes ones should really be careful, and APIs are
a grey area in my point of view. And DOM is fairly broken from a Gnome
view point though it's definitely possible to implement it fairly (c.f.
gdome2) but it's not a piece of cake.

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Veillard      | Red Hat Network http://redhat.com/products/network/
veillard redhat com  | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/