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