Re: [lmi] Which is the best C++ wrapper for libxml2?

[Evgeniy Tarassov]

On 11/8/06, Vadim Zeitlin <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 04:27:01 +0000 Greg Chicares <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> GC> Should we use the latest version of xmlwrapp instead of libxml++ ?
>
>  Short answer: I don't think so.

I agree with Vadim's point of view.

In addition i could only add that i like libxml++ more for the
following reason - xmlwrapp does not implement xml namespaces. To me
it is too restrictive because nowadays it becomes an implicit rule to
add a custom namespace to the xml resources of any serious project. It
could be a long topic if we start discussing the pros and cons of xml
namespaces, but in short the reasons to use  xml namespaces are almost
the same as for the C++ namespaces. IMHO xmlwrapp is more like C when
libxml++ is like C++.

Even if xmlwrapp is more robust and safe to use, it is too
restrictive, and we can't do anything about it. We still can identify
libxml++'s weak points and somehow "patch" it (as you have already
done in xml_lmi.?pp files), while we can not do anything about the
missing (but needed) features in xmlwrapp (we could only hack it,
which (i think) is not such a good idea for a serious project like
lmi).