Subject: Re: PATCH: Compilation with LIBXML2 was broken
From: Thomas Fletcher (thomasf@qnx.com)
Date: Mon Feb 05 2001 - 11:11:02 CST
On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 11:52:41PM +0100, Frodo Looijaard wrote:
> > Why do we try to support both expat and libxml2? I choose libxml2
> > myself because I have it in shared form, on the theory that this
> > will cut down on the size of the AbiWord image. But, unless there
> > is a good reason why we support both (do they not run on all
> > platforms?) I think we should resolve which one we want to use.
>
> Why do we support all these legacy platforms? We _could_ just use GTK
> as a primary frontend on all of the platforms. That would not make the
> application better...
Totally missed the point =;-)
Right now you can't build a native QNX/Photon version
of GTK/GDK let alone an AbiWord. For BeOS there is an
effort to port GTK/GDK, but I'm not sure of its progress.
For Windows there is a port and it seems to me that someone
a long time ago tried to make it go.
AbiWord decided to go with the native look and feel, this
means that things had to be Unixified, Gnomified, BeOSified,
Photonified, and Winified.
That is different than the decision about which XML parser
we are going to bind into our application. If we were
providing DLL support and could at run time attempt to
bind in expat _or_ libxml based on what was available, that
would be really cool. Our shared distribution right now
links against shared objects. If the shared object isn't
there then it isn't there and your application doesn't run.
We can't have one application that optionally chooses to
use a shared object based on what is on the system without
DLL's. Thus we would be forced to build two applications
one which links against expat, one that links against libxml.
Now take this argument and iterate with spelling libraries,
ispell vs pspell etc. That means that now we have four
possiblities ... add another variable option and the build
requirements for distribution grow further.
My argument is that we should pick a "winner" and decide
that it suits our needs (size, speed, portability) and
then work with that project to improve it or guarantee
its existance. I'm not just advocating this for our XML
parser, but also for things like our spelling system.
Thomas ... all of whose posts seem to be cranky today.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas (toe-mah) Fletcher QNX Software Systems
thomasf@qnx.com Neutrino Development Group
(613)-591-0931 http://www.qnx.com/~thomasf
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Feb 05 2001 - 11:10:17 CST