Subject: Re: PATCH: Compilation with LIBXML2 was broken
From: Thomas Fletcher (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Feb 05 2001 - 08:02:00 CST
On Sun, 4 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 11:52:41PM +0100, Frodo Looijaard wrote:
> > Why do we try to support both expat and libxml2? I choose libxml2
> > myself because I have it in shared form, on the theory that this
> > will cut down on the size of the AbiWord image. But, unless there
> > is a good reason why we support both (do they not run on all
> > platforms?) I think we should resolve which one we want to use.
> We support them both because we have people who want to use both.
> It's now possible to use expat as a shared library as well. We
> basically have to support expat because we need to distribute an XML
> parser so that systems that don't have one (BeOS, Win32 ) can
> compile AbiWord. And we support LibXML since people want to use it. =20
I personally think that this argument is totally flawed.
Are we planning on distributing both an expat version and
a libxml version of AbiWord? This would make maintenance
debugging and problem reporting much more complicated than
need be. My personal opinion on the matter is that we should
choose the best technology solution (size, speed, meets our
current and expected future needs) and then just stick to
that (I personally would choose expat since it has proven to
be very portable ... but I'm actually indifferent).
Having these extra bells and whistles where we are not
actually going to make use of them in a practical build
seems to be a waste of energy to me.
Thomas (toe-mah) Fletcher QNX Software Systems
email@example.com Neutrino Development Group
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Feb 05 2001 - 08:01:23 CST