Xerces size -- was Re: XMLCh to utf-8 conversion?

[Brendan Reville <br...@tenzing.com>]

> > I'm using xerces 1.2, hope that's ok.
>
> Good Lord, son!! That's bronze age equiptment. I'd seriously
> upgrade. There have been many many improvements since then (like bugs
> fixed and memory leaks patched, etc).
>
> Besides, we won't be able to help you if you don't (Since everyone on
> this list probably runs 1.5.2 or 1.6.0 ;-)

I stuck at 1.2 because last time I looked the .DLL had grown unreasonably
large, to bundle with our little piece of software, and because Xerces
suddenly linked to a new version of winsock which broke our build (with
which it previously worked).

I'd be happy to go with the latest version of Xerces if either (a) the DLL
was still small or (b) there was a decent way to build and link a minimal
SAX-only version of Xerces.


As for the exception, I'm not sure; I've found some alternate unicode->utf8
java code which I might adapt.

thanks though

- Brendan


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: xerces-c-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: xerces-c-dev-help@xml.apache.org

Re: Xerces size -- was Re: XMLCh to utf-8 conversion?

[Dean Roddey <dr...@charmedquark.com>]

Unless something major has changed, the deal is that you should be able to
drop the DOM out, if you don't need it. You'll have to also drop out the
DOMParser. It used to be even more modular than that, but somewhere along
the line a SAX2 class started gettnig used inside the core, which may cause
problems.

But I designed it from the beginning to be built as separate chunks. There
are PROJ_XXXX type defines which are used the standard VC++ import/export
reasons. If you look in the XercesDefs.h header, I believe that in there
there is a define that controls whether its going to define them all (which
is what's required for a monolithic build), or whether they'll be defined on
a per-project basis, which is what is needed to build them separately.

Originally, the layers were: Utils, scanner, validator, SAX/DOM, Parsers.
Each of those should be buildable as a DLL. However, the thing with the
circular SAX2 reference might not allow it anymore, because it would require
a circular link time issue for separate DLLs. That should really be fixed.
Anyway, you may just have to arrange to build it as a monolithic chunk
still, but just leave out the DOM and DOMParser parts.

--------------------------
Dean Roddey
The Charmed Quark Controller
Charmed Quark Software
droddey@charmedquark.com
http://www.charmedquark.com

"If it don't have a control port, don't buy it!"


----- Original Message -----
From: "Brendan Reville" <br...@tenzing.com>
To: <xe...@xml.apache.org>
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 11:03 AM
Subject: RE: Xerces size -- was Re: XMLCh to utf-8 conversion?


>
> > > I'd be happy to go with the latest version of Xerces if either (a)
> > > the DLL was still small or (b) there was a decent way to build and
> > > link a minimal SAX-only version of Xerces.
> >
> > Hmm... I think it's possible. Other people can correct me, but I
> > believe Xerces DOM relies on SAX, but SAX has no reliance on DOM. So
> > you should be able to modify the Makefile to remove the DOM and IDOM
> > components (and the DOMParser and IDOMParser) and get a working
> > library.
>
> The last thread I saw on this, quite a while back, concluded that this was
> possible in theory, but in practice the two codebases were just too
> intertangled.  Perhaps this wasn't really the case?
>
> > I don't use windows, so I couldn't tell you how to do it. Perhaps
> > Tinny could?
>
> I'm all ears!
>
> - Brendan
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: xerces-c-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: xerces-c-dev-help@xml.apache.org
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: xerces-c-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: xerces-c-dev-help@xml.apache.org

RE: Xerces size -- was Re: XMLCh to utf-8 conversion?

[Brendan Reville <br...@tenzing.com>]

> > I'd be happy to go with the latest version of Xerces if either (a)
> > the DLL was still small or (b) there was a decent way to build and
> > link a minimal SAX-only version of Xerces.
>
> Hmm... I think it's possible. Other people can correct me, but I
> believe Xerces DOM relies on SAX, but SAX has no reliance on DOM. So
> you should be able to modify the Makefile to remove the DOM and IDOM
> components (and the DOMParser and IDOMParser) and get a working
> library.

The last thread I saw on this, quite a while back, concluded that this was
possible in theory, but in practice the two codebases were just too
intertangled.  Perhaps this wasn't really the case?

> I don't use windows, so I couldn't tell you how to do it. Perhaps
> Tinny could?

I'm all ears!

- Brendan


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: xerces-c-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: xerces-c-dev-help@xml.apache.org

Re: Xerces size -- was Re: XMLCh to utf-8 conversion?

["Jason E. Stewart" <ja...@openinformatics.com>]

"Brendan Reville" <br...@tenzing.com> writes:

> I'd be happy to go with the latest version of Xerces if either (a)
> the DLL was still small or (b) there was a decent way to build and
> link a minimal SAX-only version of Xerces.

Hmm... I think it's possible. Other people can correct me, but I
believe Xerces DOM relies on SAX, but SAX has no reliance on DOM. So
you should be able to modify the Makefile to remove the DOM and IDOM
components (and the DOMParser and IDOMParser) and get a working
library.

I don't use windows, so I couldn't tell you how to do it. Perhaps
Tinny could?

jas.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: xerces-c-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: xerces-c-dev-help@xml.apache.org