apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jon Travis <jtra...@covalent.net>
Subject Re: El-Kabong -- HTML Parser
Date Thu, 29 Aug 2002 18:54:52 GMT
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 11:29:24AM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote: > On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at
02:24:28PM -0400, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > > +1 from me, I prefer APR actually.
> > 
> > I am really uncomfortable with this going under the APR project.  As
> > things stand right now, it just doesn't fit with what we have stated our
> > goals to be.
> > 
> > If you want to change our stated goals, then go ahead and do it.  Just
> > committing code that doesn't fit with our goals isn't the way to do that.
> 
> (I will defer answering this for an apr-only discussion.)
> 
> > I will make one exception to that statement.  If it lands inside of
> > APR-util, under the XML directory, and it is made to work with the XML
> > parser, I can accept that landing spot.  As it fits in closer with our
> > goals (I think).  Jim, I can't decide if this is what you meant or not.
> 
> I'm +1 on integrating it into our XML stuff. I consider it to be
> equivalent to apr-util, so either we put it inside apr-util, or
> we create a new APR subproject or sub-library for it.

I'm not keen on integrating it into the APR XML layer for a few reasons:

1 - APR's XML is not SAX-stylee.  El-Kabong is.  That isn't to say that E-K
    couldn't get a full object model interface, but it doesn't have it now.

2 - XML and HTML, while related, have several large differences which
    won't make a nice API (IMO).

3 - El-Kabong is quite speedy, and throwing another layer of indirection
    on top of it isn't particularly appealing.

-- Jon


Mime
View raw message