On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 11:29:24AM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote: > On Thu, Aug 29, 2002
at 02:24:28PM -0400, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > > +1 from me, I prefer APR actually.
> >
> > I am really uncomfortable with this going under the APR project. As
> > things stand right now, it just doesn't fit with what we have stated our
> > goals to be.
> >
> > If you want to change our stated goals, then go ahead and do it. Just
> > committing code that doesn't fit with our goals isn't the way to do that.
>
> (I will defer answering this for an apr-only discussion.)
>
> > I will make one exception to that statement. If it lands inside of
> > APR-util, under the XML directory, and it is made to work with the XML
> > parser, I can accept that landing spot. As it fits in closer with our
> > goals (I think). Jim, I can't decide if this is what you meant or not.
>
> I'm +1 on integrating it into our XML stuff. I consider it to be
> equivalent to apr-util, so either we put it inside apr-util, or
> we create a new APR subproject or sub-library for it.
I'm not keen on integrating it into the APR XML layer for a few reasons:
1 - APR's XML is not SAX-stylee. El-Kabong is. That isn't to say that E-K
couldn't get a full object model interface, but it doesn't have it now.
2 - XML and HTML, while related, have several large differences which
won't make a nice API (IMO).
3 - El-Kabong is quite speedy, and throwing another layer of indirection
on top of it isn't particularly appealing.
-- Jon
