William E. Kempf wrote: >> I tend to disagree here. Writing XML library is not easy, and libraries >> like expat and libxml2 are already here, working and debugged. The >> effort to write a new library from scratch would be quite serious, and >> will result in anything tangible only after a lot of time. Unless >> somebody has really lot of spare time, wrapping existing library is the >> only way how XML support can be added in boost. > > Careful with what you disagree with. I stated that it would still be nice > to have a Boost supplied backend, but I didn't state this was a > requirement. What I think *is* a requirement is that any wrapper library > not be tied to a single backend, and I personally believe that what > follows from that is that the submission must have at least 2 referenced > backends for proof of concept. Note that this is precisely what > Boost.Threads does, for instance.
Oh.. I misread your post. Apologies. Still, from a practical point of view I can hardly imagine that if libxml2 wrapper works, somebody will take the time to plug in another backend. That would mean rewriting all/most implementation method and will bring no end user value --- so it's not sufficiently interesting task to anybody to take. - Volodya _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
