Thanks Boris, any comments are helpful. -----Original Message----- From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Boris Kolpackov Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 2:56 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Was it something I said? (was: proper way to use Xerces for what I'm trying to do)
Hi Will, "Will Sappington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > We haven't decided on which one yet, but libxml looks pretty good from > what I've done with it so far. If anyone has experience or knowledge of > both and can shed some light on the advantages/disadvantages of either, > I'd appreciate the insight. One big difference between Xerces-C++ and Libxml2 is that the latter does not have a functional XML Schema validator. I don't know if it is important to you or not. Also note that much of the speed-up of Libxml2 compared to Xerces-C++ comes from the fact that Xerces-C++ uses 2-byte characters (UTF-16) while Libxml2 uses 1-byte characters (UTF-8). Since most performance tests that I am aware of are done on XML files that are either ASCII or UTF-8, Libxml2 has a natural advantage here. This is also something to consider depending on the type of applications you are planning to build. hth, -boris -- Boris Kolpackov Code Synthesis Tools CC http://www.codesynthesis.com Open-Source, Cross-Platform C++ XML Data Binding
