Re: Per-type architecture (Re: [10/15] Basic value access routines)

[Doug Evans <dje@google.com>]

On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Ulrich Weigand<uweigand@de.ibm.com> wrote:
> In fact, if it weren't that
> we want to avoid excessive dependencies on XML libraries, I'd argue we should
> just parse XML into a standard DOM tree representation as provided by those.
>
> Looking at this this way, serialization/deserialization of XML into and out
> of those "DOM tree" structures *should not* involve too much GDB specifics
> like GDB private data structures, but simply follow the self-describing
> property of the XML format ...

OOC, what "excessive dependencies" are you referring to?
It seems odd to want to avoid dependencies on libraries, libraries are good.
[I'm sure there's more to the story here, hence the question.  :-)]

*If* the issue is not technical (in the sense that if, for example,
the code was GPL'd and if the code was owned by the FSF, we'd already
be using it), then it might be the case that multiple projects would
want such a library (thus increasing the incentive to solve the
non-technical issues).