On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Jorge Aldo G. de F. Junior wrote:
i mean that FPC-XML tries to be too general and this leads to too
cumbersome code in various situations (FPC-XML is clearly overkill for
my needs).
But FPC-XML is not meant for storing objects. It is meant to
read any correctly formed XML file that you may find.
FPC-XML is not something we invented. It is an implementation of
an official W3 specification. (www.w3.org)
Having this specification available means that we can read/write
any XML document out there that conforms to this spec, in a standard
manner. Since the programmer does not always control the XML he/she
gets, sticking to the specifications means we're sure we'll we able
to handle any XML thrown at us.
That is why we implement FCL-XML. Sooner or later the day comes
when you'll need it's features, trust me :-)
Michael.
2010/1/28 Michael Van Canneyt <mich...@freepascal.org>:
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Jorge Aldo G. de F. Junior wrote:
im actually needing better RTTI as to allow easier method invocation...
But generally i feel my way of doing XML is better than FPC defaults
(Too generic, tries to solve too many problems with the same code)
What exactly do you mean by FPC defaults ?
Michael.
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pas...@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
