Re: [lmi] [Fwd: Astonishingly, xmlwrapp has vanished; use libxml++ instead?]

[Greg Chicares]

On 2005-8-9 17:00 UTC, I quoted Vadim as having said:
> 
>  So after spending 2 hours on exploring all the alternatives I can only
> come up with 2 proposals: (a) use expat with our own C++ wrapper outsde it
> or (b) do what you initially proposed and just go with libxml++.

The advantage of (a) is that it might run noticeably faster.
The advantage of (b) is that it's probably a lot less work.

But maybe we don't really have to make that decision. Suppose
we want (a). Then we'd really want to wrap the low-level expat
code in our own C++ wrapper, as you point out. Now, how would
we design a C++ wrapper? We'd probably copy libxml++'s
interface: that's easier than reinventing it. But in that case
we'd have to do (b) too.

Therefore, I'd say we should do (b) now and think about (a)
later. Or am I overlooking something?