If so, OP could maybe try passing --with-zlib=<path> option to a manual
install, but I'm not sure yet how it could work with gems...
···
On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 22:05 +0900, Ross Bamford wrote:
On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 21:00 +0900, Curt Hibbs wrote:
> On 2/23/06, Dominic Sisneros <dsisnero@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Tried to install it under windows and it failed because I didn't have Zlib.
> > This is with the ruby one click installer.
> Strange, because ZLib *is* included in the one-click installer.
>
> Curt
>
>
> I'm afraid I can't be much help there, I've no experience with OSX. I've
> seen standaloneify.rb but it lost me at "Takes a built RubyCocoa app
> bundle (as produced by the Xcode/ProjectBuilder template)..."
even not general advices ?
what i think about that :
make a try apart (in my HOME)
with a fresh ruby, libxml2 and RubyLibxml.
what i have to know is the process of binding that's to say how your
RubyLibxml find ruby and libxml2, probably this is done at the config
step.
Yes, it's handled by ext/xml/extconf.rb . The Ruby version you build
against is determined by the Ruby you run that script with. You can pass
in the path to libxml in usual extconf style (--with-xml2-dir or
--with-xml2-lib and --with-xml2-include).
You'll need to manually run the extconf (rather than relying on the
Rakefile) to pass in those options and then run make as usual.
···
On Sat, 2006-02-25 at 17:43 +0900, Une bévue wrote:
Ross Bamford <rossrt@roscopeco.co.uk> wrote:
then, i can catch the right parameters to get that binding into my fresh
HOME Ruby and Libxml2 ?
In all honesty, I've no idea. A quick glance suggests some differences
in API, I think this is a slightly thinner layer on top of LibXML2 but
then I could be entirely wrong...
I should mention that I'm just helping to maintain this code, it's been
around for some time...
···
On Sun, 2006-02-26 at 09:28 +0900, Dominic Sisneros wrote:
> I'm not sure about this - I'm still finding my way around some things
> here, but I'm pretty sure we do need iconv_open(3) in libiconv.
> Does it
> compile with this change?
The problem is really strange. I have libiconv-1.9 installed in
/usr, and libiconv-1.10 installed in /opt/local. mkmf says
iconv_open(3) isn't available in v1.10, but it is. Have you
tested with libiconv-1.10? Was there ever a libiconv that did not
have iconv_open()?
Hmm. The website lists 1.9.1 as the latest stable release. I need to
look more into this I think, but one thing you might try is specifying
--with-iconv-lib and --with-iconv-include separately, rather than
--with-iconv-dir.
> If you are passing --with-xml2-<whatever> settings, you should be fine
> to comment-out the lines that run those scripts (for both CFLAGS and
> LDFLAGS). If that works for you I'll fix it with a default to the
> dir_config and commit it.
I did this, and all unittests passed.
Thanks, I'll commit that fix tomorrow.
···
On Sun, 2006-02-26 at 10:59 +0900, Daniel Harple wrote:
No, it just includes the executable. The release notes show the exact
version, so you could download the source and extract the header.
Curt
···
On 2/24/06, Ross Bamford <rossrt@roscopeco.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 22:05 +0900, Ross Bamford wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 21:00 +0900, Curt Hibbs wrote:
> > On 2/23/06, Dominic Sisneros <dsisnero@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Tried to install it under windows and it failed because I didn't have Zlib.
> > > This is with the ruby one click installer.
> > Strange, because ZLib *is* included in the one-click installer.
> >
> > Curt
> >
(Wrong button, excuse the noise)
Does it include the zlib.h header ?
If so, OP could maybe try passing --with-zlib=<path> option to a manual
install, but I'm not sure yet how it could work with gems...
OK, fine i'll give it a try ASAP and let you know.
···
Ross Bamford <rossrt@roscopeco.co.uk> wrote:
Yes, it's handled by ext/xml/extconf.rb . The Ruby version you build
against is determined by the Ruby you run that script with. You can pass
in the path to libxml in usual extconf style (--with-xml2-dir or
--with-xml2-lib and --with-xml2-include).
You'll need to manually run the extconf (rather than relying on the
Rakefile) to pass in those options and then run make as usual.
I'll try, but I have to admit I've never made serious use of REXML.
I think the main difference really is that REXML is implemented in Ruby,
whereas LibXML-Ruby is a C-language binding to a native library (that
being, somewhat confusingly I must admit, the Gnome LibXML2 library).
The main upshot of this is speed, and supported functionality - most
(though not all) operations are faster with LibXML-Ruby than with REXML,
mainly due to the native implementation, but partly because LibXML2 is
itself pretty quick too. Thanks to it's place in Gnome, LibXML2 also
allows us to support a range of XML-related technologies that REXML
doesn't (as far as I'm aware?), including stable support for namespaces,
XPointer, XInclude, catalogues, and more. Obviously full support is
present for XPath, too (as in REXML I think).
Possibly more important than any of that depending on your usage is
validation: LibXML2 (and by extension LibXML-Ruby) fully support DTD
validation, and has some support for XML Schema (not exactly sure on the
current status of this).
I won't get into any 'our library is better than your library'
discussions, because it's not about that - the two are different animals
that happen to share a hunting ground. The reasons for choosing one or
the other come down to a combination of your requirements in terms of
performance, what you need to do with your XML, whether or not you can
compile LibXML2 and extensions on your target platform, and your
personal preference in terms of which API you prefer.
···
On Sat, 2006-02-25 at 01:38 +0900, listrecv@gmail.com wrote:
Great!
Could you please explain to us uninitiated the advantages (and
disadvantages) of this over REXML?