Dinesh Premalal wrote:
Hi,
On 10/1/05, *Samisa Abeysinghe* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
>On Fri, 2005-09-30 at 08:24 +0600, Samisa Abeysinghe wrote:
>
>
>>What I would do for the time being is to use APR because I need
to jump
>>into serializing ASAP. We could revisit the implementation later
and
>>replace APR containers with whatever desired containers.
>>
>>
>
>+1 .. let's stand on the shoulders of giants :).
>
>
I noticed that the pull parser code in Guththila uses strndup.
This is a
GNU only method, and not present in Win API.
Hence I used the strdup of APR in the stream writer.
Since you are unable move forward because of unavailability of
xmlstream writer in Guththila implementation it is ok to use APR for
implementing xmlstreamwriter. Then you could carry development of om
But I think its good to keep Guththila as independent implementation.
Therefore I started working on xmlstreamwriter independently but It
will take some time. I think Ill be able to implement xmlstreamwriter
with available resources in Guththila.
Well I have implementd almost everything required by the stream writer.
Why should you re-invent the weel? :( I spent almost 4 days on this code.
Please use my implementation, and if you think you got to do away with
APR plese do so in my code itself. I have clearly commented the code in
places where I use APR. You could also search for 'apr' prefix to locate
the places where APR is used.
IMHO, use of APR in guththila is not a big issue. Why should we keep on
re-inventing the wheel when we have all the things alredy implemented by
APR already?
Thanks,
Samisa...
Any comments please.....
thanks,
Dinesh
When doing the coding convention refactoring we got to change these in
Guththila as well.
Thnaks,
Samisa...
>Sanjiva.
>
>
>
>
>
--
W.Dinesh Premalal
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.cse.mrt.ac.lk/~premalwd/
<http://www.cse.mrt.ac.lk/%7Epremalwd/>
