[9fans] xml2 and APE

[9fans] xml2 and APE

[Giacomo Tesio]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 270 bytes --]

Hello list,

I've found in http://netlib.bell-labs.com/wiki/plan9/Contrib_index/ the xml2
(libxml2-2.6.30 for APE) package from Federico G. Benavento.

I was wondering if I have to use all the APE to use the library for writing
a Plan 9 application.


Giacomo

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 376 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] xml2 and APE

[Federico G. Benavento]

hola,

> I was wondering if I have to use all the APE to use the library for writing
> a Plan 9 application.

as it says it's an APE port, that means you have to use the APE api with it,
I see no point in writing a native app using libxml2, if I needed to doing some
 xml I'd use something like steve's libxml

/n/sources/contrib/steve/libxml.tar






--
Federico G. Benavento

Re: [9fans] xml2 and APE

[Giacomo Tesio]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 676 bytes --]

Ehm... Sorry... :-D

As I knew libxml2, I directly searched "libxml2" in the contrib page...


You're right... I'll use that. :-D


Giacomo

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Federico G. Benavento
<benavento@gmail.com>wrote:

> hola,
>
> > I was wondering if I have to use all the APE to use the library for
> writing
> > a Plan 9 application.
>
> as it says it's an APE port, that means you have to use the APE api with
> it,
> I see no point in writing a native app using libxml2, if I needed to doing
> some
>  xml I'd use something like steve's libxml
>
> /n/sources/contrib/steve/libxml.tar
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Federico G. Benavento
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1082 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] xml2 and APE

[Uriel]

xml? Just say *no*.

And BTW, steve's libxml is far from usable and doesn't really
implement the complete standard (but who can blame him? the libxml2
people have been working on their implementation for years, and it is
still full of bugs and security issues, not to mention insanely slow).

Again, just say *no* to xml, even the web 2.0 fools have given it up.

uriel


On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Federico G. Benavento
<benavento@gmail.com> wrote:
> hola,
>
>> I was wondering if I have to use all the APE to use the library for writing
>> a Plan 9 application.
>
> as it says it's an APE port, that means you have to use the APE api with it,
> I see no point in writing a native app using libxml2, if I needed to doing some
>  xml I'd use something like steve's libxml
>
> /n/sources/contrib/steve/libxml.tar
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Federico G. Benavento
>
>

Re: [9fans] xml2 and APE

[Eris Discordia]

> Again, just say *no* to xml, even the web 2.0 fools have given it up.

I agree. Web 2.0 is for fools.

I don't agree. Say yes to XML because you have to say yes to some markup
language anyway. Why not give the yes to an eXtensible one with a zillion
applications already, from TEI to DocBook to DITA to RSS to what have you?

And don't tell me you had SGML in mind.

--On Tuesday, November 25, 2008 11:34 PM +0100 Uriel <uriel99@gmail.com>
wrote:

> xml? Just say *no*.
>
> And BTW, steve's libxml is far from usable and doesn't really
> implement the complete standard (but who can blame him? the libxml2
> people have been working on their implementation for years, and it is
> still full of bugs and security issues, not to mention insanely slow).
>
> Again, just say *no* to xml, even the web 2.0 fools have given it up.
>
> uriel
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Federico G. Benavento
> <benavento@gmail.com> wrote:
>> hola,
>>
>>> I was wondering if I have to use all the APE to use the library for
>>> writing a Plan 9 application.
>>
>> as it says it's an APE port, that means you have to use the APE api with
>> it, I see no point in writing a native app using libxml2, if I needed to
>> doing some xml I'd use something like steve's libxml
>>
>> /n/sources/contrib/steve/libxml.tar
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Federico G. Benavento
>>
>>
>

Re: [9fans] xml2 and APE

[Giacomo Tesio]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1942 bytes --]

I'd prefer to avoid flame war, since I know this is an hot cold topic here.

But I don't agree.

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 11:34 PM, Uriel <uriel99@gmail.com> wrote:

> xml? Just say *no*.
>
> And BTW, steve's libxml is far from usable and doesn't really
> implement the complete standard (but who can blame him? the libxml2
> people have been working on their implementation for years, and it is
> still full of bugs and security issues, not to mention insanely slow).


well... slow... may be  if compared with a parser for a non-extensible
language, but I'm not sure I could do better (even if I didn't try).

As any other tecnology XML could be misused. But there is no reason to
"hate" it so much.

Depending on your application design and the (human or not) environment who
required the application, it could be a bless or a mess.


For what I'm thinking there is simply no other way to obtain the result.

I need to encapsulate human skills to minimize the interaction between them
(graphic designers and developers).
With the (huge?) fixed cost of such a library development, I could minimize
it.

Again, just say *no* to xml, even the web 2.0 fools have given it up.
>

I find many approaching XML in a similar way than other use for plan 9: they
are so misunderstood!

Those web 2.0 guys who decided to avoid XML are often moving HTML pieces.
And they fill them selves smart. Or evalutating JSON.

It could seem smart, actually. But when client change (say from a browser to
a flash or to a web service) your problem begins.

Moreover those smart guys mix data and presentation.
They are smart if their only need is to sell a web 2.0 site to someone
actually need a blog.
For anything more, they are chosing a dangerous road.


>
> uriel
>

Giacomo
PS: I've had way to appretiate your estetical opinions about software
design. Only upon this subject I deeply disagree with you.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2678 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] xml2 and APE

[Nick LaForge]

hello,

interfacing external languages should not often be hard, especially by
defining a relevent language subset.

i don't understand, though, why your external language 'xml' need now
be part of your application?

thanks,
nkl

Re: [9fans] xml2 and APE

[Giacomo Tesio]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1382 bytes --]

Probably my english is worse than I thought! :-D

Well. I'd like to build a framework for web development as described in
http://9fans.net/archive/2008/11/748
http://9fans.net/archive/2008/11/796

Since XML (and XSLT) are so diffused, it would allow to delegate the (not
so) tiny client/browser to dressup data toward javascript and to optimize
bandwith by moving only needed contents.

Obviously, when the client is really tiny, like the blind readers are, or
doesn't support javascript, the server has to be able to translate by itself
and send it yet dressed webpages.

Well this is one of the feature I require.

But, in 5 years of (non exclusive) web development, I could not find such a
framework.


IMHO, it would be also a chance for Plan 9 itself to be a bit less
elitarian.
More complex and huge systems (like JEE or .NET) don't allow the role
separation (developer / graphic designer) I aim to. Nor the speed, the
security or the scalability.


Sadly, 'till now, they are just ideas.


Giacomo


On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 3:01 AM, Nick LaForge <nicklaforge@gmail.com> wrote:

> hello,
>
> interfacing external languages should not often be hard, especially by
> defining a relevent language subset.
>
> i don't understand, though, why your external language 'xml' need now
> be part of your application?
>
> thanks,
> nkl
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1839 bytes --]