On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Sean Chittenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> But since you went ahead with swapping XML => LibXML, that probably
>>> best anyway. I wonder about one thing though, is backward
>>> compatibility best preserved with:
>>> XML = LibXML
>>> or as you have it:
>>> module XML
>>> include LibXML
>>> end
>
> Use an environment variable at require time and the module assigns.
>
> # XX untested
> if ['0','false','no','off',false,nil,'hell god damn "no!" me
> harder'].include? (ENV['RUBY_LIBXML_SHORT_PATH'].nil? ? true :
> ENV['RUBY_LIBXML_SHORT_PATH'].downcase])
> # Only LibXML class
> else
> XML = LibXML
> end
>
> Then users can set the env variable and goto town however they want.
>
>> FYI, I moved to XSLT to LibXSLT to be consistent. Although when I started
>> using it, I found it to be a bit ugly. Take a look:
>>
>> # Create a new XSL Transform
>> stylesheet_doc = LibXML::Document.file('files/fuzface.xsl')
>> stylesheet = LibXSLT::Stylesheet.new(stylesheet_doc)
>>
>> # Transform a xml document
>> xml_doc = LibXML::Document.file('files/fuzface.xml')
>> result = stylesheet.apply(xml_doc)
>>
>>
>> Notice how hard it becomes to distinguish the namespaces (LibXML and
>> LibXSLT). Compare:
>>
>> # Create a new XSL Transform
>> stylesheet_doc = XML::Document.file('files/fuzface.xsl')
>> stylesheet = XSLT::Stylesheet.new(stylesheet_doc)
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
>
> Use of XML was actually a conscious choice on my part. Ditch the
> puritanical or egalitarian thoughts. Odds of two XML parsing libraries
> loaded into the same instance is rare. I imagined there would be little to
> no contention for the XML namespace because everyone would've treated it as
> holy. Bah! A "User" identifier is holy, but XML is not (one is
> application, the other is library). I think the above 'LibXML'-ification of
> the namespace is appropriate, however, but focus on making the library easy
> to use, hence XML vs LibXML.
>
> Don't step on other people's dicks intentionally, but it's okay for the
> library to be assertive and to match its ambitions. Tip-toeing around 'what
> if' is an endless rabbit hole. We'll adapt and find a solution if there is
> a problem at some point in the future. Cool?
Actually I agree. XML:: and XSLT:: are a lot better. Trying to find
the right balance between ease-of-use and interoperability can be
difficult.
I think we should reconsider wrapping what we have in a LibXML
namespace. This provides for both possibilities. Usage would entail:
require 'libxml'
module MyApp
include LibXML
# Create a new XSL Transform
stylesheet_doc = XML::Document.file('files/fuzface.xsl')
stylesheet = XSLT::Stylesheet.new(stylesheet_doc)
...
end
See that's nice to use and proper! :-)
I think we tend to think in terms of the toplevel, but in most
applications this isn't the case.
T.
_______________________________________________
libxml-devel mailing list
libxml-devel@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/libxml-devel
