Re: cvs: php4 /ext/qtdom qtdom.c qtdom.h

At 12:26 AM 11/17/2000 +0200, Andi Gutmans wrote:

At 04:21 PM 11/16/00 +0100, Sterling Hughes wrote:

At 03:33 PM 11/16/2000 +0100, Uwe Steinmann wrote:

On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 08:24:57PM +0100, Jan Borsodi wrote:

Sterling Hughes <Sterling.Hughes@pentap.net> writes:

At 07:00 PM 11/15/2000 +0000, Jan Borsodi wrote:

amos            Wed Nov 15 11:00:05 2000 EDT

Added files:

    /php4/ext/qtdom     qtdom.c qtdom.h

Log: Initial import, contains PHP specific extensions, takes care of converting C++ QDom objects to PHP objects. This version has only one function: qdom_tree() which returns a tree of a string containing an XML document.

Looks interesting, what exactly is the Qtdom extension?

It is an XML parser with a DOM interface, there already exists a version in PHP which uses the gnome XML library, but after having tried it on several XML files we found that it failed on most of them. We then tried the same XML files with the QDom parser in the Qt library and all files parsed perfectly. So we created this extension which uses the QDom parser, it works perfectly :)

Could you please send me some of this xml files so i can check what is going on.

I don't know other peoples opinions on this, however, I think it might be worth considering only distributing one DOM-XML parser with PHP (perhaps when the pear gets finished up, this can change), I don't think its really a good idea to distribute another dom-xml parser with PHP because a current extension "doesn't work", in my opinion it would be wiser to see if we could fix the bugs in the existing extension (which has quite an extensive feature set) rather than packaging and distributing two dom-xml extensions that provide the same functionality (especially since the libxml based extension currently provides many more features). That doesn't mean that the Qtdom extension is not a valid extension, I just think that it shouldn't be a part of the main tree when we already have a (pretty much) working dom-xml parser in PHP. Perhaps an option of distributing the QtDOM extension separately might be an idea.

Seems to me that the interfaces are different and some people might prefer one over another. I think at this time (as we don't have other systems setup) it's a good idea to include it in the main CVS tree. Andi

Ok. ´That's fine with me. The extension doesn't hurt me if its included, I just disagree with the principal. Just as a note, it really doesn't offer a different interface. Its pretty much the same interface, its just the difference between calling xmldoc() and qdom_tree(). -Sterling