Re: Incremental XML Parsing

[David Sugar]

The read and close virtuals ultimately have to be called, because those 
can be overriden and bind xml to streams or to other things such as 
passed xml memory buffers.  I think having a seperate parsePartial may 
also be useful, and we should pass the length of the buffer to request for 
that.  What if we broadcast XML content over multiple UDP 
packets, for example.

On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Federico Montesino Pouzols wrote:

> 
>       Yes, I think this patch should go on both the stable and
> unstable branches. It adds a very interesting capability and should
> not harm applications that do not need partial parsing.
> 
>       It is also interesting to discuss the following two points:
> 
>       * The patch from Ari implements the "Method 1" he described in
> his first mail. Should we also add a special parse() -say
> partialParse()- method that implements the "Method 2"? I suppose this
> method would be almost equal to the normal parse(), except that it
> would run just one iteration of the loop.
> 
>       * What do we do with the read() and close() virtual methods
> now?  Should we remove them, or would it be valid to call read()
> inside the loop and close() after the loop? I think this last option
> makes sense but I am not too certain.
> 
> On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 01:39:14PM -0400, David Sugar wrote:
> > We may want to have this in the RELEASE1 tree as well...?  It seems 
> > harmless 
> > enough for existing code.
> > 
> > On Wednesday 09 October 2002 13:04, Ari Johnson wrote:
> > > I did go ahead and implement this; took about 3 minutes total.  My patch
> > > to xml.cpp is attached to this message.
> > >  -- Ari Johnson
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bug-commoncpp mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-commoncpp
>