On 27/07/15 09:58, "Gerhard Scheikl" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Friday 24 July 2015 08:50:07 Thiago Macieira wrote: >> On Friday 24 July 2015 15:26:30 Gerhard Scheikl wrote: >> Hello Gerhard >> >> Your question is answered mostly by your paragraph above: QtXml is in >>Done >> state, so we really don't want to do major surgery in it, which could >>open >> the door up for subtle incompatibilities. >> >> I'm not even talking about introducing bugs that aren't there. That's >>sure a >> concern. But even if you do your best, you may *fix* bugs that people >>are >> accidentally depending on; or the simple fact of a change in behaviour >> could result in existing code getting broken. >> >> Are you prepared to accept all of those reports and react to them? > >Hi > >I didn't fully think it through yet, was just an idea. :) > >> > So we came up with the idea to replace the back-end with Xerces and >>try to >> > leave the Qt API part the same. >> >> That's interesting. >> >> How big is Xerces? > >Around 260k LOC. > >> How easy is it to build? > >./configure && make && make install > >> How is it licensed? > >Apache 2.0 > >> > If we succeed, we would like to give this code back to the community >>and >> > replace the current QtXml classes. >> >> Do you include accepting maintainership of the module and reacting to >>bug >> reports in "give this code back to the community"? >> >> We're all for new and improved code, but when it comes with a large >> maintenance burden, we have to analyse whether it's worth the hassle. > >We have to maintain our code anyway. We definitely need to create a >library >that allows us to bring fast and working XML processing to our Qt backend. >Even better if we get external bug reports. > >Maybe creating a 3rd party library would be the better choice. >Maybe creating something like QtXml2 would be an option. Did you consider using QXmlStreamReader/Writer instead of the old QXml? These classes are fully compliant, well tested and very fast. The only drawback is that there is no equivalent to the QDom* classes, but in most cases you’re better off parsing directly into your own data structures anyway. Cheers, Lars > >What do you think? >Could we arrange a conference call to talk about options? > >Thanks! > >Best regards, >Gerhard >_______________________________________________ >Development mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
