[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: genx - abstract output
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 09:55:34PM -0800, Tim Bray wrote: > So, *why* do you want to serialize it? To write it to a file or down a > pipe to some other process, I'd say. Or a remote process through a socket. Or stuffing into a database/DBM file. > Unless you're going to send it to > someone else, why don't you leave it in a data structure where it's > handy to traverse, manipulate, throw XPaths at, etc... Maybe I want to compress and/or base64 encode the data before I'm done. Maybe I want to transcode the output before writing it to a file. FILE * is a perfect, simple interface that hits upwards of 80% of the usage scenarios. My point is that it's not 100% of those scenarios, and I don't think genx should make a value judgement that these situations shouldn't be able to serialize to valid XML. So here's the $64 question: is it more important that genx be useful in a wide range of situations, or is it more important that genx absolutely guarantee that it always produces valid XML or fails? I'm arguing the former. I think you're arguing the latter, and expect genx users to use temp files if their needs are somewhat out of the ordinary. > It's just that the compartment in my brain where actual > angle-brackets-and-Unicode XML lives is right next to the one where > interchange and publishing happen. And when I'm interchanging and > publishing, I'm usually talking to a FILE *. Unless I'm missing something totally obvious, using FILE * creates an impedence mismatch with raw sockets. Z.
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|