From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anthony Liguori Subject: Re: a last comment on xml-rpc Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 09:20:47 -0600 Message-ID: <43EE00CF.4060607@us.ibm.com> References: <43ED1615.7030209@lanl.gov> <43ED23F7.7040300@us.ibm.com> <20060211082102.GQ9506@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20060211082102.GQ9506@redhat.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: veillard@redhat.com Cc: xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Daniel Veillard wrote: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 05:38:31PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> I've also written an XML-RPC interface to Xend in C using libxml2. It >> very little code and just works. Granted, parsing XML is more painful >> that parsing S-Expressions but there are so many libraries for so many >> languages that XML parsing is really a nop. >> > > Did you push that code anywhere ;-) ? > Not yet, but I will be :-) > I can think of 2 very different ways to do the implementation (tree + paths > or direct SAX2 event flow) and would probably end up doing the second one > though the code might be more complex. I took the tree/path approach. I wrote an XML-RPC parser before using libexpat and it was more complicated than it should have been. Once one has a DOM structure it's a pretty straight forward recursive routine to marshal/unmarshal. > It might depends on the efficiency of > the Python side, it may not be worth shaving microseconds and kilobytes > on the C side if the Python side is one order of magnitude slower, in which > case the simplest C code would be best. > Yeah, that was my basic feeling about it :-) Regards, Anthony Liguori > Daniel > >