Re: [DotGNU]extension APIs (was Re: [Website]Preparing for dotgnu meet-a-thon)

[Gopal V]

If memory serves me right, James Mc Parlane wrote:

S110011 wrote,
> > Hate to say it, but it would be much nicer if we had 
> > pnet-built, pure IL  libs. 

As far as possible we will !. It's just that I'm not upto
the System.Xml challenge .

Also libxml# parses .xml.gz files (which was a suggestion I made
months ago -- Gzipped XML) 

> The flip side of this argument is, why replicate what already works, is
> maintained by other equally dedicated groups, and would arguably run much(?)
> faster until dot.gnu has JIT compiler capabilities on par with GCC's
> optomiser.

Well MS System.Xml does seem to depend on MSXML engine ..... A fast XML
library won't be amiss here .. Still our "selling" point has been the
portability issue ..

In the other profile VM (other than Full) , my libs won't function
we would still need an IL System.Xml parser (why someone would Parse
XML in a minimal env is yet another issue... ;)

Still, libxml2 is well supported on many platforms and it is more portable
than it first looks ... and I like the looks of it.

> I think that having pure pnetlib implementations would be a good thing.. 

Yes, that would be "Portability" issue ... Also we need a working System.Xml
for ECMA compat . And libxml2 doesn't seem to be a way out for implementing
System.Xml (by a long shot)...

So no problems in that direction.

> look.. dot.gnu its here.. its now..and its based on libs that are 
> already out there and running on production servers.

That is my idea -- "here ,now" ... (and "fast")

Gopal
-- 
The difference between insanity and genius is measured by success