Re: libxml2 bindings

[Nic]

address@hidden 
 writes:

> I would phrase that different: the more one modules that are 
> available, the better. But i really don't see why a markup 
> parser has to be in the language core. What's so horrible about 
>  
>  (use-modules (parsers xml libxml2)) 
>  
> Now, one thing i kind of dream of is a kind of "generic" interface 
> definition that unifies modules with the same purpose (something 
> like SAX, DOM etc. for XML parsers) so that one could substitute 
> one for another (this allready works with XML parsers in Java). 

Note that Java (from Sun) comes with XML parsers and an XSLT engine
now. It is true that GNU Java still doesn't.

Personally I see no need at all for generic interfaces. As long as
the interfaces aren't radically different it's easy to port between
them.

This particular point is much more important in the database world
where JDBC gives a real advantage. But Guile hackers can achieve the
same with simple co-operation I suspect.


> Yes, but if some core code of guile links against code under 
> different licences (like, in libxml2's case, the MIT licence) 
> it starts to get messy. I really don't want to have to go through 
> a whole pile of licences before a start looking at a project 
> (one is more than enough). 

I don't see the problem as long as guile is promising that such code
will be licenced under GPL compatible licences.

However... I accept what you're saying.


> > I need to get the code somewhere, I could send you a tarball if you 
> > want one. Just email me if you do. 
>  
> Need some webspace ? ;-) 

I have some webspace but it's a bit of a mess and I'm too busy to
clear it all up.

I'm in the middle of writing a new HTTP server the spur for which is
a REST-full RSS based blog app written using the libxml2 binding.


See my next guile-user post for another suggestion.


-- 
Nic Ferrier
http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk