Re: Suggestion regarding header files...

[David Sugar]

I find usually when I choose not to build Common C++ with "XML support"  
(there is a configure option to do this implicitly), I also only link with
ccgnu rather than with ccext, so, in a sense it is a "build requirement"  
to have XML support, but certainly not a runtime requirement if one builds
small footprint applications that only link with ccgnu.  It would also be
interesting if we could alternately use other xml parsers into the Common
C++ XML classes.  If no XML support is present at build time, however, 
should that be an error or a warning?  I think it should be at least a 
warning, which it isn't now.

On Sat, 2 Nov 2002, Federico Montesino Pouzols wrote:

> 
>       I see. your solution seems much better. We will also have to
> put the '#include <xml.h>' in common.h inside an #ifdef. And we should
> also apply the #error idea to ftp.h and piostream, which are optional
> too.
> 
>       If there is no objection, this will be done within a few days.
> 
> On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 07:39:17PM -0600, Ari Johnson wrote:
> > 
> > If you compiled without XML support, but you try to include cc++/xml.h,
> > you should be informed that you're trying to use a part of the library
> > that you didn't install.  I think that xml.h is a good place to put this,
> > and also that it should be an #error (just like trying to start a car
> > without an engine is an error and not something that can be ignored as a
> > warning).
> >  -- Ari Johnson
> > 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-commoncpp mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-commoncpp
>