Re: XML idea

[Alex Perez]

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004, Pete French wrote:

> > No, it doesn't.
> 
> Now that response surprises me as I though that any Apple additions
> which didnt conflict with the basic OpenStep spec were good for addition.
With the explicit statement that  this is not the case when Apple's 
implementation sucks.  Many believe NSXMLParse is kinda not so 
great...and I have to at least agree that whoever thought it out wasnt 
thinking straight...This is the kind of wrapper that should go into my 
PortabilityKit. PortabilityKit does not make assumptions about good/bad 
API designs, it just implements missing classes between GNUstep and Cocoa, 
and it doesnt discriminate. If someone wants to write a wrapper for it, 
i'd be glad to integrate it.
 
> > > If they aren't good, we shouldn't add them. A good, standalone XML
> > framework is much better than a bad, minimalistic implementation in
> > -base.
> 
> Except for portability reasons (which I know doesnt matter to  a lot
> of people, but to others it is vital).
This is what PortabilityKit is for. The objective is to get people to 
contribute wrappers or implementations of classes and methods which Apple 
has introduced but are not in GNUstep proper. This should alleviate some 
political problems. PortabilityKit will be released under the LGPL.
> 
> > depend on -base being configured a certain way isn't nice.
Agreed
> 
> Now there I agree with you. It shouldnt really require yet more libraries
> to be present. How about a standalone implementation though ?
Sounds good, but an XML parser is a lot of overhead.