Paul
On 11/11/05, Duane Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Personally, I would like to see a system where static and DLL based
implementations can be supported. With the abstraction layer that will
be needed to support multiple parsers, adding an implementation layer
that loads a DLL should be reasonably straightforward.
However, a system that uses static linking is essential for some applications.
...Duane
--- At Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:50:26 +0000, Paul Fremantle wrote:
>Nandika
>
>At some point we should decide how much is done by compile time options
>and how much by DLL loading. Certainly I think we will want to ship
>an .exe that has our preferred parser built in (for simplicity). But in
>Axis1/C++ we used DLL linking for the parser which made it easier to change.
>
>Paul
>
>On 11/11/05, nandika jayawardana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi all,
>It is time that we should remove guththila dependency from code and make
>an abstraction layer so that other parser can also be plugged in without
>having to change code .
>
>So the idea is to have a axis2_pull_parser.h header file which defines
>the xml pull parser api used by the axis2 which can be implemented to
>write a wrapper for a new parser intended to be plugged in.
>
>The axis2_pull_parser.h header is defined using the stax api which is
>implemented by guththila XML pull parser .
>
>axis2 will implement guththila as the default XML parser , anyone
>willing to use another parser can recompile the code with the configure
option
>--with-pull-parser=<parser name from list>
...Duane
