The reason Xerces behaves so "Java-like" is mainly because it implements
interfaces like SAX, which was invented in the Java world, and DOM, which
was specifically invented to be 'clean' OO (meaning no templates). AFAIK
there is no native C++ interface to XML.
> Those features are standard in all compilers since a couple of years
> ago, at least; and templates, at least 4 years before that. Besides,
> nowadays, you can write pretty portable, #ifdef-free, code in
> C++; major
> compilers, like GNU c++ and VC++, compile the same code without a
Unfortunately, this is only true if you stay away from the more interesting
template mechanisms. Templates are really powerful, but support for them is
still too erratic to be really useful while maintaining portability. That
doesn't mean, however, that we shouldn't start thinking in that direction.
IMHO, the most important feature missing from Xerces is namespaces. Most
compilers support them nowadays and it's really easy to disable them for
backward compatibility. The only reason I can see why namespaces are not
used in Xercesc, is the work involved.
I admit I'd love to see those silly prefixes disappear from the user code.
Pieter
**** DISCLAIMER ****
"This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information which is
confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights and are
intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above.
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not limited to,
total or partial reproduction, communication or distribution in any form) by
persons other than the designated recipient(s) is prohibited.
If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender either
by telephone or by e-mail and delete the material from any computer.
Thank you for your cooperation."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
