Re: XML::Fling begone?

As an on-and-off effort ive been replacing all direct uses of to new_xml_fling. Hypothetically if the interfaces were compatible you could modify that and replace XML::Fling. Not sure how valuable that would be however. I think the speed gain would have to be quite signifigant to make it worth the effort.

---
demerphq

Comment on Re: XML::Fling begone?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: XML::Fling begone? by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Dec 19, 2004 at 17:50 UTC
Note that I'm proposing this not solely for the speed gains, but also for the added safety afforded by Genx. It offers more of what Fling does well and less of its drawbacks. Makeshifts last the longest.	[reply]
Re^3: XML::Fling begone? by demerphq (Chancellor) on Dec 19, 2004 at 17:54 UTC
Its just that XML::FLing is fairly pervasive is all. Also its interface quirks are definately exploited in the code base. Converting wont be straight-forward unfortunately. --- demerphq	[reply]
Re^4: XML::Fling begone? by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Dec 19, 2004 at 18:04 UTC
I know — that's why I tossed this thought out first before I sunk any time into the idea at all. What I'm asking is, do you think it is at all worthwhile to look into this (let alone do it)? Makeshifts last the longest.	[reply]
Re^5: XML::Fling begone? by demerphq (Chancellor) on Dec 19, 2004 at 18:06 UTC
Re^6: XML::Fling begone? by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Dec 19, 2004 at 18:11 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here