std.xml should just go

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 15:48:45 -0500, Tomek Sowiński <just at ask.me> wrote:

> Jonathan M Davis napisał:
>
>> I think that at least a couple of people have said that they have the  
>> beginnings
>> of a replacement, but I don't believe that anyone has stepped up to say  
>> that
>> they'll actually complete and propose a module for inclusion in Phobos.
>
> Wimps ;-)
>
>> So, std.xml is still very much up in the air, and Tango has set a very  
>> high bar
>> with regards to speed. And while we may not be able to match Tango for  
>> speed -
>> especially at first - we'd definitely like to have an xml solution  
>> that's close.
>> And that's not necessarily going to be easy - especially since we're  
>> inevitably
>> going to want a range-based solution. And while ranges can be quite  
>> efficient, it
>> can also be easy to make them inefficient if you're not careful.
>
> Speaking of Tango, may I look at it? I remember that beef over the first  
> datetime and it gives me shivers...

I'd recommend not looking at it based on past experience.

 From this Tango forum post:  
http://www.dsource.org/projects/tango/forums/topic/389 it looks like it  
was based on sendero, which looks like it's GPL  
(http://sourceforge.net/projects/sendero/).  Not much help there, but you  
might get good luck contacting the sendero author to see if he is willing  
to change the license for Phobos (he obviously must have for Tango, since  
Tango is not GPL).

I believe it is a pull parser, though I'm not sure what that means.  What  
I do know about Tango is that they strive to avoid memory allocation at  
any cost.  Likely it uses the excellent buffering I/O that Tango has in  
order to avoid copying the input data once it is read from a file.  You  
will be hard pressed to compete with Tango until phobos gets better I/O  
support (it currently relies on C FILE * I/O).

-Steve