Subject: Re: PATCH: Compilation with LIBXML2 was broken
From: Aaron Lehmann (aaronl@vitelus.com)
Date: Mon Feb 05 2001 - 10:13:24 CST
On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 09:02:00AM -0500, Thomas Fletcher wrote:
> I personally think that this argument is totally flawed.
> Are we planning on distributing both an expat version and
> a libxml version of AbiWord?
Excuse me? Support for each exists in all recent versions. They're
options, not forked trees.
> This would make maintenance
> debugging and problem reporting much more complicated than
> need be.
XML parsers are not used all that often in the code. Both seem to work
fine now and it shouldn't be very difficult to debug problems.
> My personal opinion on the matter is that we should
> choose the best technology solution (size, speed, meets our
> current and expected future needs) and then just stick to
> that (I personally would choose expat since it has proven to
> be very portable ... but I'm actually indifferent).
Why don't we choose the best technological widget set/operating
system?
Expat appears to be the standard on QNX, just as I beleive that
libxml2 is more standard on free Unix implementations. This is
analagous to one using Photon and the other using GTK, except the XML
interfaces are waaay simpler and less utilized than the graphics and
frontend calls to different platforms' toolkits.
It's not very important to support two XML parsers, but I do not see
why this duality is a problem. Sure it's easier to inavertantly
combust the tree, but the same is true of supporting multiple
frontends.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Feb 05 2001 - 10:13:34 CST