Hello Christian,
Friday, January 16, 2004, 12:20:13 PM, you wrote:
> Marcus Boerger wrote:
>> Just a node: The thing you saw required SXE objects implementing
>> interface RecursiveIterator{reset(), hasMore(), key(), current(),
>> next(), hasChildren(), getChildren()}
> Excuse my ignorance: As I
Marcus Boerger wrote:
Just a node: The thing you saw required SXE objects implementing
interface RecursiveIterator{reset(), hasMore(), key(), current(),
next(), hasChildren(), getChildren()}
Excuse my ignorance: As I wasn't at ApacheCon I'm not sure what Adam was
talking about, is the SXE/Recursiv
Hello Adam,
Thursday, January 15, 2004, 6:01:58 PM, you wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Rob Richards wrote:
>> Ignore the user space issue for right now as I dont go into that at all. I
>> dont see iterators as being worthless, however there is a behavior clash
>> between the iterators and the arr
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Rob Richards wrote:
> Ignore the user space issue for right now as I dont go into that at all. I
> dont see iterators as being worthless, however there is a behavior clash
> between the iterators and the arrays.
I really like Iterators, so I'd like to see this ironed out. Bas
> >> Thanks for moving backward. Since iterating is now worthless i am all
for
> >> removing it completley. I mean it isn't even in the spirit of the
extension.
> >> I will sleep over this tonight and probably remove the work of another
full
> >> week too. Just because it is too complex and doesn't
> Hello Adam,
>
> Thanks for moving backward. Since iterating is now worthless i am all for
> removing it completley. I mean it isn't even in the spirit of the extension.
> I will sleep over this tonight and probably remove the work of another full
> week too. Just because it is too complex and do
Marcus Boerger wrote:
Thanks for moving backward. Since iterating is now worthless i am all for
removing it completley. I mean it isn't even in the spirit of the extension.
Care to explain? I'm dazed and confused on how you came to the
conclusion that iterators are now worthless...
Was this discu
Uhm, I guess I was out of the loop but I think it's a real shame to remove
iteration from SimpleXML.
It was really slick to use a foreach() over the
XML elements.
Can't we put that back in?
We are really hurting functionality and I think it'll complicate matters if
we need to start instanciating
Hello Sterling,
Saturday, January 19, 1980, 12:10:39 PM, you wrote:
>> Hello Adam,
>>
>> Thanks for moving backward. Since iterating is now worthless i am all for
>> removing it completley. I mean it isn't even in the spirit of the extension.
>> I will sleep over this tonight and probably remove
Hello Adam,
Thanks for moving backward. Since iterating is now worthless i am all for
removing it completley. I mean it isn't even in the spirit of the extension.
I will sleep over this tonight and probably remove the work of another full
week too. Just because it is too complex and doesn't fit in
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Adam Maccabee Trachtenberg wrote:
> If we can get a couple +1s on this, I would then like to move onto the
> next steps which would be deciding which functions will be in the
> initial release, what their prototypes are, and who should implement
> what and by when.
+1.
-Andre
> From: Adam Maccabee Trachtenberg
>
> > 1) SimpleXML creates PHP data structures from XML documents. It only
> >handles XML elements, attributes, and text nodes. The syntax for
> >accessing the text node children of an element is akin to object
> >properties ($foo->bar); the syntax of
Adam Maccabee Trachtenberg wrote:
Don't do that. Use the schema. :)
Is that why it's called SimpleXML? ;-)
I don't think one should force people to use schemata for now.
Unless, of course, you're not in control over those documents.
You can simply wrap it when passing it to SimpleXML, e.g.
simplex
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Christian Schneider wrote:
> Adam Trachtenberg wrote:
> > However, I don't really see any way around this otherwise. Either it's
> > general or not. It can't be both. (Unless there's some magical type
> > that's both an array and a scalar.) I'm willing to put up with this
Adam Trachtenberg wrote:
Ugh. This is pretty much the limit of what I think is reasonable for
SimpleXML to handle. It think the API would be more consistent if the
Agreed. I was just curious how it behaves if I push it to the limit :-)
> However, I don't really see any way around this otherwise.
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Adam Trachtenberg wrote:
> Here are my thoughts on solutions:
>
> 1) Place all elements in an array (or nodeList) regardless whether
> there's 0, 1, or many. This is the DOM solution. This just leads to
> annoying code where you need to do $foo->item(0) and $foo->firstChild.
>
On Jan 13, 2004, at 9:21 AM, Christian Schneider wrote:
But let's take a look on how I'd use it (xml formatted for
readability):
$foo = simplexml_load_string('
ab
foo2a
cd
foo2b
ef
foo3
foo4
foo3
gh
');
Ugh. This is pretty much the limit of what I think is reasonable for
On Jan 13, 2004, at 7:33 AM, Rob Richards wrote:
From: Adam Maccabee Trachtenberg
1) SimpleXML creates PHP data structures from XML documents. It only
handles XML elements, attributes, and text nodes. The syntax for
accessing the text node children of an element is akin to object
propert
At 14:33 13/01/2004, Rob Richards wrote:
From: Adam Maccabee Trachtenberg
> 1) SimpleXML creates PHP data structures from XML documents. It only
>handles XML elements, attributes, and text nodes. The syntax for
>accessing the text node children of an element is akin to object
>properti
Rob Richards wrote:
From: Adam Maccabee Trachtenberg
accessing the text node children of an element is akin to object
properties ($foo->bar); the syntax of accessing attributes is akin
to array elements ($foo['bar']).
Hmm... This is somewhat up-side-down language wise. Attributes are
proper
From: Adam Maccabee Trachtenberg
> 1) SimpleXML creates PHP data structures from XML documents. It only
>handles XML elements, attributes, and text nodes. The syntax for
>accessing the text node children of an element is akin to object
>properties ($foo->bar); the syntax of accessing a
I pretty much agree with most of this. I am +1 on moving forward and
reaching a plan and implementation ASAP.
I agree with Sterling that we should keep things simple and slim. This will
also allows us to regret this decision in the future and add more
functionality. As I said previously, I would
In the hopes of moving the discussion forward, I'm going to try and
sum up general consensus. I believe we agree on most issues, so
hopefully it should be easy to come up with the next steps we should
take with SimpleXML.
I know it's late in the PHP 5 process, but I feel that SimpleXML was
designe
23 matches
Mail list logo
