True, although alot could be said for alot of other abstraction type libraries in other projects, libxml2 has been around a long time and having previously read the history on the project an assload of time was spent on optimising the parsing routine so if things haven't speed up over the period of the project theres likely a reason, the other benefit is having a consistent API from an app development perspective.
Dale. dan sinclair wrote: > I'm assuming that they'd love some performance related patches. > Writing something from scratch isn't a good response to a performance > issue unless there is some fundamental reason you can't make it > faster/better. > > dan > > > Dale Anderson wrote: >> Libxml2 doesn't exactly provide stellar parsing performance does it?, >> which appears to me a majority of peoples complaints regarding XML use. >> >> Dale. >> >> >> >> dan sinclair wrote: >>> Jose Gonzalez wrote: >>> >>>> Massimiliano wrote: >>>> >>>> > > > Might I suggest exporting the efreet xml parser and use it >>>> > > > instead? Does anyone object? Using strstr to parse xml isn't >>>> > > > very nice. >>>> > > > >>>> > > > Sebastian >>>> > > >>>> > > On my side i don't have any preference, i initially wrote my >>>> > > parser 'cause i've to parse a very small subset of tags, and >>>> > > i rewritten it to make it better/faster and to have support for >>>> > > media namespace. But if you think that efreet's parser is better/ >>>> > > faster, feel free to change. >>>> > > >>>> > > Thx >>>> > > >>>> > > Massimiliano >>>> > >>>> > Still waiting for replies? >>>> > >>>> >>>> I can't say that I've followed what this is about.. but if >>>> it's something like wether "e" should have a good xml parser/api >>>> vs. everyone who needs something like that having to write their >>>> own... then I'd say it may be time for "e" to stop 'poo-poo-ing' xml >>>> (mostly an excuse to avoid dealing with it) and consider developing >>>> some solid support for it - for those that may wish to NOT write >>>> their own when they need to use xml. >>>> Like it or not, xml is here and not going away any time soon, >>>> its use is almost universal - especially across the web, but also >>>> locally as well. >>>> >>>> PS. >>>> Wasn't there "exml" supposedly to deal with this? Or is that >>>> another lib that has serious flaws or limitations? >>>> >>>> >>> Why write our own when libxml2 works quite well? Seems like needless >>> NIH to me. >>> >>> dan >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft >>> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. >>> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> enlightenment-devel mailing list >>> enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel >>> >>> >> >> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
