Re: Appreciation

Since we are appreciating... let me add my appreciation.

At work (A major Financial Institution) we are using XML-Xerces (where
before we had used expat), because we wanted a _validating_ parser, for
a particular project.  It worked great. It was only a minor annoyance
that the current version is 'old' (2.3).

At home, I created and submitted a Gentoo Linux portage ebuild for
XML-Xerces, but by the time they got around to looking at it, their
standard Xerces (had moved on to 2.4), and it would nolonger build
without a downgrade, so they rejected it with the note I that I could
reopen the bugzilla ticket, if I had an ebuild that would work against
2.4. or 2.5.  I had to hack my system to keep portage from upgrading
Xerces (and breaking XML-Xerces).  So I would love to see a version
built against a more recent xerces-c.  I promise that I will upgrade the
ebuild, and resubmit, if an new version is made available.

What is left to do?

On Tue, 2004-06-15 at 21:51, Jason E. Stewart wrote:
> Chris Cheung <[email protected]> writes:
> 
> > Also, just want to let you know that I appreciate your voluntary work. 
> > We are actual using Xerces-Perl in a commercial project, which will be put 
> > into production in 1 or 2 months. 
> 
> Hi Chris!
> 
> Thanks for the note of appreciation, it helps emmensely. I started
> working on this project because I needed a good XML parser for Perl,
> and I've continued working on it, mostly alone, for that same reason.
> 
> Having a user community is something that really inspires me, so
> thanks again for the note.
> 
> > Xerces-Perl is good as it enables Perl applications directly access the
> > Xerces-C ability to perform validation against schema, apart from parsing
> > and serialization. (It seems that libxml2, which also has a Perl wrapper,
> > does not do validation so well.) However, the memory leak problem (during
> > parsing even if validation is turned off, and during serialization) is 
> > hindering the project to use Xerces in a more large-scale way.
> 
> I agree. I debugged this as much as I was able and came up with a big
> zero. It is *not* a Xerces-C problem, so it is a XML-Xerces problem -
> but given the code we are executing I am not able to figure out where
> the problem lies.
> 
> I could really use some help here.
> 
> If anyone has some time to run a test program through purify or
> valgrind and identify exactly where the leaks are happening I'll be
> happy to fix it. 
> 
> Cheers,
> jas.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>