Hey Boris, On 21/03/2008, Boris Kolpackov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To make it clear, I don't have anything against Xerces-P or swig. I understand, you are concerned with being able to focus on Xerces-C and making sure it works well. > I don't particularly like how from a project that depends on > Xerces-C++ it transitioned into a project that is part of Xerces-C++ > and now tries to force me to maintain it. But this decision was made > before I got involved with the project. Yes, I can see that it seems odd from the perspective of how to make a good C++ library. Maybe it will turn out a mistake in the end. The desire from the ASF board was that Xerces-P get more oversight from the Xerces PMC. That before releases of Xerces-P were made that the code was reviewed. This was one solution. If the scripting language bindings were made more available and more widely announced I suspect they would be appreciated by the other language communities, and in the end it would mean more use of Xerces-C and a better library. The helpful assistance I've been getting lately, especially from Boris and Alberto has made it possible to envision a 3.0 release of Xerces-P. The work to integrate the swig bindings into the new build system is a one time job. For future releases, the amount of oversight will drop to a tiny fraction of what is happening now - if not, then it will be un-maintainable. I believe the last piece to discuss is in what form a Xerces-P distribution would look like - including it with the xerces-c source distribution? or a seperate distribution? I would favor a seperate distribution, and that I would put on CPAN as well as apache.org. Again, it really is my hope that the language bindings are a help the project and not a hinderance. Cheers, jas. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
