Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 02:59:50AM +0100, Aron Szabo wrote:
Hi!
If I use the library in a threaded program and call
xmlCleanupParser() I can't reinitialize it.
So here's what happens:
1. xmlCleanupThreads() is called from xmlCleanupParser()
2. the global key is
Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 02:59:50AM +0100, Aron Szabo wrote:
Hi!
If I use the library in a threaded program and call
xmlCleanupParser() I can't reinitialize it.
So here's what happens:
1. xmlCleanupThreads() is called from xmlCleanupParser()
2. the global key is deleted
Do you suspect that there are more broken implementation vs.
implementations correctly using xmlCleanupParser? The proposed change
would break correctly implemented systems, but still compile and be
hard to detect. Shouldn't correctly implemented systems be favored
over the broken ones?
For
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 03:40:30PM +0100, Martin B. wrote:
Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 02:59:50AM +0100, Aron Szabo wrote:
Hi!
If I use the library in a threaded program and call
xmlCleanupParser() I can't reinitialize it.
So here's what happens:
1.
Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 03:40:30PM +0100, Martin B. wrote:
Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 02:59:50AM +0100, Aron Szabo wrote:
Hi!
If I use the library in a threaded program and call
xmlCleanupParser() I can't reinitialize it.
So here's what happens:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 04:38:24PM +0100, Martin B. wrote:
That is impossible, for ABI compatibility,
Ah OK. In that case the best thing would be to have the function in
the ABI but get a compiler error if it's used with the newer
headers. Don't have a clue how that could magically be
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 07:54:20AM -0700, James Hart wrote:
Do you suspect that there are more broken implementation vs.
implementations correctly using xmlCleanupParser? The proposed change
The point is about brokeness, missing xmlCleanupParser results just
in a minimal leak for remaining
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 04:38:24PM +0100, Martin B. wrote:
Daniel Veillard wrote:
Best thing would be if xmlCleanupParser() would be removed completely, no?
That is impossible, for ABI compatibility,
Ah OK. In that case the best thing would be to have the function in
the ABI but get a
Hi!
I don't know if it exists the library should have a get_version function
so versions can be fetched from dynamic libraries.
My opinion is to just remove the thread cleanup function from
xmlCleanupParser() and modify the documentation.
Actually the documentation
I am sure you know about __attribute__ ((deprecated)) :)
Aleksey
On 1/19/2010 7:47 AM, Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 04:38:24PM +0100, Martin B. wrote:
Daniel Veillard wrote:
Best thing would be if xmlCleanupParser() would be removed completely, no?
That is impossible,
Aleksey Sanin wrote:
I am sure you know about __attribute__ ((deprecated)) :)
This is gcc, right?
I just discovered that the Microsoft compiler apparently has
__declspec(deprecated)
for this purpose.
br,
Martin
Aleksey
On 1/19/2010 7:47 AM, Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010
Hmm ... but this point of view would mean that the whole mechanism for this
function is bad for a shared-lib environment, no matter how it's called.
So I could think of this:
* xmlInitParser() and xmlCleanupParser() get deprecated (via the various
compiler specific attributes)
*
12 matches
Mail list logo
