The Trunk: XML-Parser-nice.4.mcz

Nicolas Cellier uploaded a new version of XML-Parser to project The Trunk:
http://source.squeak.org/trunk/XML-Parser-nice.4.mcz

==================== Summary ====================

Name: XML-Parser-nice.4
Author: nice
Time: 20 October 2009, 12:44:20 pm
UUID: bf2759d9-768f-8744-942b-4a9d85d111f5
Ancestors: XML-Parser-mir.3

use #fasterKeys

=============== Diff against XML-Parser-mir.3 ===============

Item was changed:
  ----- Method: XMLWriter>>startElement:attributeList: (in category 'writing xml') -----
  startElement: elementName attributeList: attributeList
  self canonical
  ifFalse: [self stream cr].
  self startTag: elementName.
+ attributeList fasterKeys sort do: [:key |
- attributeList keys asSortedCollection do: [:key |
  self attribute: key value: (attributeList at: key)]!

Item was changed:
  Object subclass: #XMLTokenizer
  instanceVariableNames: 'stream nestedStreams entities externalEntities parameterEntities parsingMarkup markedPosition peekChar validating nameBuffer attributeBuffer'
+ classVariableNames: 'CharEscapes DigitTable LiteralChars NameDelimiters SeparatorTable'
- classVariableNames: 'NameDelimiters SeparatorTable CharEscapes DigitTable LiteralChars'
  poolDictionaries: ''
  category: 'XML-Parser'!
 
  !XMLTokenizer commentStamp: '<historical>' prior: 0!
  XMLTokenizer
 
  [hidden email]
 
  breaks the stream of characters into a stream of XMLnodes (aka token stream)
  token stream is used by XMLparser to generate XMLdocument tree!

Hi Nico.

I just noticed you do a new version of XML-Parser-nice.4.
I using XML-Parser-mir.9 , coming from SqueakSource.
And looking in Google I discover in http://www.squeaksource.com/XMLSupport
exist more new.

For this and others packages which should have his own place and was in  the
"up to date" .image, I ask for having a consensus and put the best one.

And one "packages management" politics , coming from the Board.

Edgar

Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
> For this and others packages which should have his own place and was in  the
> "up to date" .image, I ask for having a consensus and put the best one.

As a straw-man proposal, I think we should merge the most up-to-date
upstream version. There will always be a few downstream modifications
but it would be good to try to stay up-to-date with the most recent
upstream version.

Cheers,
   - Andreas

Andreas Raab wrote:
> Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
>> For this and others packages which should have his own place and was
>> in  the
>> "up to date" .image, I ask for having a consensus and put the best one.
>
> As a straw-man proposal, I think we should merge the most up-to-date
> upstream version. There will always be a few downstream modifications
> but it would be good to try to stay up-to-date with the most recent
> upstream version.

+1

Problem with this patch is that it breaks backwards compatibility for
the XML parser by introducing a non standard dictionary protocol.

Michael

2009/10/20 Michael Rueger <[hidden email]>:
Yes, this is experimental, don't commit in another repository by now !

Nicolas