On Dec 3, 2007, at 5:09 PM, Dan Janowski wrote:
> Paul,
>
> It looks fine at first glance, but I have not had time to apply the
> patch and examine the results. The library is a lot less fragile than
> when I got it, but I need to be careful when adding code that is not
> fixing a bug to be sure not to blow something else up.
I understand, I'm just happy it's now usable and being maintained. The
slow performance of REXML was killing me. That being said there's
still a lot of work to do...
> Thanks for the patch. Have any interest in contributing more?
Definitely, I'm going to take a stab at fixing the namespace segfault
I reported along with this patch submission. What do you think about
switching to RSpec and increasing the test coverage? I'd be happy to
kick this off. This would lead to more thorough test coverage and test
cases that are actually descriptive, the current structure is too
cryptic to be really useful.
--Paul
> On Dec 3, 2007, at 14:52, Paul Dlug wrote:
>
>> Dan,
>>
>> Just wondering, any feedback on this?
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Paul
>>
>> On Nov 27, 2007, at 11:41 PM, Paul Dlug wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 27, 2007, at 3:26 PM, Dan Janowski wrote:
>>>
>>>> I see the merit in this kind of approach but it cannot conflict
>>>> with
>>>> the libxml work flow. I.e.:
>>>>
>>>> instead of XML::Document.parse(xml) => Document
>>>> XML::Parser.parse(xml) => Document
>>>>
>>>> If you want to update the patch for the current code base, I am
>>>> willing to apply and eval it.
>>>
>>> I updated the original patch from Tobias to work with the current
>>> subversion trunk (220). I made the suggested modification above so
>>> it's XML::Parser.parse(xml) rather than XML::Document.parse --
>>> though I do think XML::Document.parse is a little bit of a cleaner
>>> API.
>>>
>>> I also found a bug with namespace assignments, if you assign a
>>> namespace to a node not associated with a document it segfaults:
>>>
>>> doc = XML::Document.new
>>> node = XML::Node.new('root')
>>> node.namespace = "t:test"
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what the best way to fix this is since I'm not the
>>> familiar with the namespace code at this point.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> <libxml-patched.tar.gz>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Nov 27, 2007, at 13:48, Paul Dlug wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I see patch #7758 hasn't been worked on or updated since
>>>>> submission
>>>>> (long ago):
>>>>> http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?
>>>>> func=detail&aid=7758&group_id=494&atid=1973
>>>>>
>>>>> This seems like a great idea and the new parse method solves
>>>>> eliminates the need for part of the patch I submitted
>>>>> (#15807). Is
>>>>> there any interest in getting this into the current library? I
>>>>> would
>>>>> be happy to modify the patch to bring it up to date with the
>>>>> current
>>>>> trunk version. This would certainly create a much more user
>>>>> friendly
>>>>> API than what currently exists.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Paul
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> libxml-devel mailing list
>>>>> libxml-devel@rubyforge.org
>>>>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/libxml-devel
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> libxml-devel mailing list
>>>> libxml-devel@rubyforge.org
>>>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/libxml-devel
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> libxml-devel mailing list
>>> libxml-devel@rubyforge.org
>>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/libxml-devel
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> libxml-devel mailing list
>> libxml-devel@rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/libxml-devel
>
> _______________________________________________
> libxml-devel mailing list
> libxml-devel@rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/libxml-devel
>
_______________________________________________
libxml-devel mailing list
libxml-devel@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/libxml-devel
