- From: Charles Reitzel <creitzel@rcn.com>
- Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 11:07:34 -0400
- To: Wade Leftwich <wade@lightlink.com>
- Cc: html-tidy@w3.org
I have a simple COM wrapper for libtidy. It is pretty rough. I haven't had time to give it any polish, but it is re-entrant (free threaded in COM terms). I used ATL instead of MFC, so it is small and lightweight. The API is the same as my C++ wrapper - which is pretty much the same as the C lib with object notation. You can pull it from my Tidy page at: http://users.rcn.com/creitzel/tidy.html Get back to me on the dev list at <tidy-develop@lists.sourceforge.net> with any bugs, questions, etc. Sorry it took so long, Jelks! And, no, the original TidyCOM shares the original Tidy's lack of re-entrancy. That said, like libtidy, my ATL wrapper does no synchronization. That is up to you. My suggestion is to keep TidyDocument objects local. I.e. create and destory them as needed. The objection instantiation cost has been kept low - far below the cost of parsing and formatting (the largest part of which is I/O). Thus it is cheaper to just create and destroy local variables than it is to synchronize access to shared objects. No synchronization necessary! take it easy, Charlie At 05:33 PM 9/8/2002 -0400, Wade Leftwich wrote: >Hello, > >I am looking at using TidyCOM in an ASP application, to clean up HTML that >users type into a textarea. > >On the TidyCOM home page (http://perso.wanadoo.fr/ablavier/TidyCOM/ ), I find >this warning: >""" >Warning: TidyCOM's code is not re-entrant--no more than 1 instance of >TidyObject should be alive at the same time in the same process. >""" > >Pardon my ignorance about ASP (I'm more of a Zope person), but does this mean >only one TidyObject may exist in the entire ASP application? If that's the >case, I guess I have to do a queue-and-mutex thing. > >Any advice or recommendations of alternatives appreciated. > > >Wade Leftwich >Ithaca, NY
Received on Monday, 9 September 2002 10:58:17 UTC