[libxml-devel] Patches applied

TRANS transfire at gmail.com
Mon Apr 17 10:43:37 EDT 2006

On 4/17/06, Ross Bamford <rosco at roscopeco.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 01:35:59 +0100, Sean Chittenden <sean at gigave.com>
> wrote:
> >> On the other hand, I'm not necessarily adverse to having some kind
> >> of 'easy' API built on top of the core library, if there was enough
> >> to it, and it was sufficiently 'easy', but then again that's
> >> probably for another (dependent) project. But in this sense I don't
> >> consider methods like 'first' and 'empty?' as easy - I consider them
> >> essential parts of the core library.
> >>
> >> Anyway, that's just me. Sean might have a different view...(?)
> >
> > And I do!  The C library could easily include, mixin, or inherit bits
> > from a plain text ruby library.  As bottlenecks and performance issues
> > are identified (or as time permits), the ruby library could be
> > converted to C.  The `require 'libxml'` line should include the .so,
> > but if the .so includes additional ruby files, who cares... this'll
> > provide an easy way for us to prototype new APIs before they get
> > integrated into the core.
> >
> Okay, I've set this up in CVS. Basically, the C library is now
> xml/libxml_so, and 'xml/libxml' is a Ruby file that requires libxml_so,
> then goes on to make the modifications Mark and I put together. I'd still
> like to get empty? implemented in C at least but as you say it's a good
> way to get it in quick.

Hmm... adding functionality. I would tend to give that the new name
since it is over and above the libxml binding. Perhaps the total
package could come in:

  require 'xml'

but xml/libxml could remain the pure binding.

> What do you think to having an 'xml/libxml2' require as well, maybe
> lightly deprecating 'xml/libxml'?

What's the point? Personaly I find such numberd names useless. Unless
the original libxml (not 2) is in common use, why bother? If you
really want create a file, libxml2.rb with content:

  require 'xml/libxml'

But peronally I don't want to *have* to use require 'xml/libxml2'.


More information about the libxml-devel mailing list