Creating XML with ticpp can be very verbose

[GoogleCodeExporter]

The current TinyXML++ API requires that each XML node is created, and added
to a parent, explicitly.  As such, it can quickly become verbose.  Consider
the following example:

    Element measurements("measurements");
    Element tbr("TotalBytesReceived");
    tbr.SetAttribute("displayName", "Total Bytes Received");
    tbr.SetText(12);
    Element tbp("TotalBytesProcessed");
    tbp.SetAttribute("displayName", "Total Bytes Processed");
    tbp.SetText(14);
    Element teb("TotalErroredBytes");
    teb.SetAttribute("displayName", "Total Errored Bytes");
    teb.SetText(42);
    measurements.InsertEndChild(tbr);
    measurements.InsertEndChild(tbp);
    measurements.InsertEndChild(teb);
    root->InsertEndChild(measurements);

That produces the following XML snippet:

    <measurements>
        <TotalBytesReceived displayName="Total Bytes
Received">12</TotalBytesReceived>
        <TotalBytesProcessed displayName="Total Bytes
Processed">14</TotalBytesProcessed>
        <TotalErroredBytes displayName="Total Errored
Bytes">42</TotalErroredBytes>
    </measurements>

Through the use of judicious operator overloading we could have syntax like
the following:

    *root <<
        (Element("measurements")
            << (Element("TotalBytesReceived")("displayName", "Total Bytes
Received") = 12)
            << (Element("TotalBytesProcessed")("displayName", "Total Bytes
Processed") = 14)
            << (Element("TotalErroredBytes")("displayName", "Total Errored
Bytes") = 42));

(I've attached a trivial patch that allows this.)

For me this is a significant improvement.  In particular I the SetAttribute
(operator()()) and SetText (operator=) changes fit well IMO.  I'm less
happy with operator<< inserting a node...I'm still experimenting.

So, generally, the issue is that ticpp is quite verbose and we could
possibly make improvements.  What do you think?

[Also, is it possible to start a discussion board?  This isn't really the
right place to discuss improvements but there doesn't seem to be anywhere
else to communicate!  We intend to use ticpp a fair bit within our company
and I'd like to try and help where I can.]

Original issue reported on code.google.com by matt.tre...@gmail.com on 7 Apr 2009 at 2:26

Attachments:

• ticpp.patch

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Oh, it's also worth noting that Attributes can be chained:

  Element tbr("TotalBytesReceived")
      ("displayName", "Total Bytes Received")
      ("attrib2",     "attrib2 value")
      ("attrib3",     "attrib3 value");

Original comment by matt.tre...@gmail.com on 7 Apr 2009 at 4:36

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I thought that I would write here (since there is no forum) and mention that my
experience with TinyXML++ was very poor.  I was looking for a quick and easy 
solution
for reading/writing C++ object configuration files.  As such I came across 
TinyXML++
and CodeSynthesis XSD.  The latter being a XML Data binder for C++.  I read on 
both
and decided upon TinyXML++ simply because I thought CodeSynthesis required more
configuration, making my project as a whole less portable and more hassle to 
work
with at future dates if there are interruptions...i.e. I hate working with 
something
and then coming back to it months later and having to figure out again how to 
run a
separate compiler.   I strive for simplicity in configuration, and use.   So I 
tried
TinyXML++ and now have decided to abandon it.  Here is my brief assesment of 
TinyXML++:

Documentation is very poor.  Premake instructions are not up to date, and 
examples in
the tutorial are incomplete.
Source commenting is almost non existent.
Was able to build lib file with MSVS but then got exception, in my program, when
trying to load a test XML file.
Tried to build TinyXML as part of my program but ran into numerous errors.

To sum up, way too much difficulty involved to mess further with, especially for
something that is supposed to be minimalistic.   As a programmer I forgive a 
lack of
good documentation etc. only if they just work and have zero defects.

Original comment by bhar...@gmail.com on 23 Apr 2009 at 10:11

[GoogleCodeExporter]

bhartsb, 
I just don't understand why you would take the time to post if you "abandon 
it". I
feel the doxygen is adequate, not perfect, but documented. Did you generate the
documentation? Or use the website? And yes the library throws exceptions, so 
expect
that. It is stated in the documentation! If we have documentation on all the 
methods
why do you care if the code within the functions is documented.

This message feels like a flame and I just don't accept it. Sorry, but you 
could be
much more constructive.

Original comment by rpusz...@gmail.com on 24 Apr 2009 at 1:05

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Continuing on the original issue...it's also possible to use this alternative 
syntax:

    root += node("measurements") +=
           (node("TotalBytesReceived") ("displayName", "Total Bytes Received") .Set(12),
            node("TotalBytesProcessed")("displayName", "Total Bytes Processed").Set(14),
            node("TotalErroredBytes")  ("displayName", "Total Errored Bytes")  .Set(42));

Which, although hard to read in this issue tracker, is even more compact.  It's 
also
harder to get wrong because parentheses are not required as much as with the 
first
attempt.  Here's a more complex example:

    pis += node("name")("id",1) .Set("Fred"),
           node("url")          .Set("http://trentini.wordpress.com"),
           node("status")       .Set(500),
           node("triggers")     .Set("geoTrigger"),
           node("stops")        .Set("stopsDoc"),
           node("function") +=
               ( node("name")  .Set("step next"),
                 node("url")   .Set("sn"),
                 node("parameter") +=
                     ( node("name")       .Set("stepnext"),
                       node("value")      .Set(10),
                       node("caption")    .Set("Count"),
                       node("description").Set("Repeat value")
                     )
               );

Achieving this syntax is a little complex but the above is compiling code and
produces the expected XML.  I find it very readable and easy to understand.  The
implementation code is not particularly neat yet but if anyone wants a patch 
let me
know.  

Most of it (with the exception of 'Set') is defined outside of ticpp so it 
could even
be used with little modification to ticpp itself.  A client could just #include
"alternative_ticpp_syntax.h" and use it...

Original comment by matt.tre...@gmail.com on 29 Apr 2009 at 12:32

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Do you want to be a developer? If so, you can just branch to add this.

I think I would prefer to have have this be an include, this way it is optional 
and
doen't put more into the already large ticpp class.

Original comment by rpusz...@gmail.com on 29 Apr 2009 at 3:37

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Sure, that'd be great.

I agree that it'd probably be best to have a separate header for the 
'alternative'
syntax.  However there needs to be at least two additions to ticpp.h: 
operator()()
(for attribute chaining) and Set().  Both have to be member functions.

Original comment by matt.tre...@gmail.com on 30 Apr 2009 at 10:32

[GoogleCodeExporter]

You are now a developer.

It is fine with me to add the needed additions in ticpp.h. So create a branch 
and
have fun. Thanks.

Original comment by rpusz...@gmail.com on 30 Apr 2009 at 1:48

• Changed state: Started
• Added labels: Type-Enhancement, Usability
• Removed labels: Type-Defect

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I've begun experimenting with changes on my branch:

  https://ticpp.googlecode.com/svn/branches/matt.trentini/alternative_syntax

Any feedback would be welcome!

Original comment by matt.tre...@gmail.com on 20 Jun 2009 at 1:16

[GoogleCodeExporter]

The branch is good,but I compile your sugar's example code on VS2008,then I see 
the
warning.Could you help me to clear these warnings? thanks....

warning C4239: nonstandard extension used : 'argument' : conversion from
'ticpp::sugar::NodeCombiner' to 'ticpp::sugar::NodeCombiner &'
        A non-const reference may only be bound to an lvalue

warning C4239: nonstandard extension used : 'argument' : conversion from
'ticpp::Comment' to 'ticpp::Node &'
        A non-const reference may only be bound to an lvalue

Original comment by rswa...@gmail.com on 8 Sep 2009 at 2:40

[GoogleCodeExporter]

On the off chance this thread is still alive...

Matt - I'd be interested in the further patches - I've tried your branch but it 
only contains some of the changes you mentioned. Otherwise I'll try 
implementing something myself and will post it up if anyone's interested.

Thanks!
Alex

Original comment by Alexande...@gmail.com on 31 Aug 2011 at 3:39