On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 15:48:45 -0500, Tomek Sowiński <j...@ask.me> wrote:
Jonathan M Davis napisał:
I think that at least a couple of people have said that they have the
beginnings
of a replacement, but I don't believe that anyone has stepped up to say
that
they'll actually complete and propose a module for inclusion in Phobos.
Wimps ;-)
So, std.xml is still very much up in the air, and Tango has set a very
high bar
with regards to speed. And while we may not be able to match Tango for
speed -
especially at first - we'd definitely like to have an xml solution
that's close.
And that's not necessarily going to be easy - especially since we're
inevitably
going to want a range-based solution. And while ranges can be quite
efficient, it
can also be easy to make them inefficient if you're not careful.
Speaking of Tango, may I look at it? I remember that beef over the first
datetime and it gives me shivers...
I'd recommend not looking at it based on past experience.
From this Tango forum post:
http://www.dsource.org/projects/tango/forums/topic/389 it looks like it
was based on sendero, which looks like it's GPL
(http://sourceforge.net/projects/sendero/). Not much help there, but you
might get good luck contacting the sendero author to see if he is willing
to change the license for Phobos (he obviously must have for Tango, since
Tango is not GPL).
I believe it is a pull parser, though I'm not sure what that means. What
I do know about Tango is that they strive to avoid memory allocation at
any cost. Likely it uses the excellent buffering I/O that Tango has in
order to avoid copying the input data once it is read from a file. You
will be hard pressed to compete with Tango until phobos gets better I/O
support (it currently relies on C FILE * I/O).
-Steve
