Re: [Nautilus-list] Re: libxml Issues

[Ali Abdin <aliabdin aucegypt edu>]

* Daniel Veillard (Daniel Veillard w3 org) wrote at 02:35 on 04/08/00:
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 02:28:29PM +0300, Ali Abdin wrote:
> > * Darin Adler (darin eazel com) wrote at 14:21 on 03/08/00:
> > > This creates a real problem for us. We need to be able to compile many
> > > different modules in the same prefix. So unless there is an irresistible
> > > reason not to, this problem would be enough reason for us to switch to
> > > libxml2 as part of our GNOME 2.0 changes rather than doing it before then.
> > 
> > Well - I am the one who actually brought up this issue with DV in a private
> > email. I was in the process of debugging gnome-db2html2, and was mailing him
> > about the bugs that I found. Most of his responses were 'Known issue. Upgrade
> > to libxml2' and then I explained to him that I can not.
> > 
> > There will be issues with the 'help' stuff if this is not fixed. For example,
> > I have the '%' symbol in one of my docs. libxml1 goes crazy on it and spews
> > out incomprehensible data (and this is rendered to the user).
> 
>   Well, it seems there is no way I will be able people to upgrade.
> As I pointed out during Miguel OLS talk, we may have improved a few
> thing compared to Windows, but the real painful problem of managing
> pools of shared libraries *is not solved* !
>   And each time people select solution based on sharing of libraries
> instead of a fork/exec solution they just increase the problem by
> disallowing use of different level of shared libs in the final "program".
> This may gain some speed, but also bind all the subparts in a single
> processus space with all the known problem this can raise, and shared
> deps is becomming one of the most significant one IMHO.
>   I have no solution to this, I would just like to raise the flag
> and be sure that when people opt for binding a new service by using
> a shared library they realize the associated problems.
> 
>   For now it seems I have no choice but fixing and trying to cope
> with libxml version 1 bugs until the end of the year. This is no fun.
> Ali please submit sample examples exposing the bugs, I will try to fix
> them,

Well - to be honest. The hacker in me tells me that we should all upgrade to
libxml 2.x - It is logical and make sense.

The problem is people have often been complaining of binary/source
incompatibility, and how they can't use GNOME as a 'stable' development
platform because it keeps changing etc, etc, etc. 

So the reason we're not upgrading seems to be purely political. It sucks when
politics gets involved with code. (Disclaimer: I am not blaming anyone for
this - I'm just saying it sucks)

I will email you privately with the code/samples for libxml1

Regards,
Ali