Nikolay Samokhvalov wrote:
> On 3/27/07, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Where are we on this?  Peter thought the consistency makes sense, but if
> > we can provide functionality that doesn't require libxml, why not
> > do it?
> I'm still for --enable-xml and putting _everything_ XML-related under this
> option. My main points are:
>  - we cannot guarantee that existing libxml2-free functions will not require
> them in the future (because libxml2 contains useful routines);
>  - libxml2-free functions (e.g. Peter's XML mapping functions,
> produce XML values, but we cannot use XPath function for them unless we have
> libxml2;
>  - people will make errors, trying to understand what needs libxml2, and
> what doesn't -- approach "all or nothing" is simple and straightforward;
> Well, it seems that I have no more arguments :-) If there is no objections,
> I'll send the patch tonight.
> If I am wrong and it's better to leave libxml2-free capabilities, then IMHO
> we need to reflect it explicitly in the docs, what requires libxml2, and
> what doesn't

Agreed, let's do the later and update the documentation.  Also, do we
output a helpful message if someone tries to use a libxml2 function that
isn't available.

  Bruce Momjian  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Reply via email to