Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [pcgen-xml] Re: Propuesta...

Expand Messages
  • Ysgarran
    ... Back a ways when one of the programmers went into PCGen and put in a persistence layer I wrote some code that converted the LST files into XML files. I
    Message 1 of 6 , Sep 29, 2005
      >I've been thinking about some sort of conversion program to/from
      >XML/PCGen data set for a long time. However I don't have the time for
      >it, and it would be moderately difficult because of the PCGen internal
      >handling of feats and class features.
      >
      >
      >
      Back a ways when one of the programmers went into PCGen and put in a
      persistence layer I wrote some code that converted the LST files into
      XML files. I believe that particular set of code is long gone but I
      will probalby take a look for it anyways when I get home tonight.

      I did not read the LST files myself, what I did is put hooks into the
      persistence layer. That code would take the PCGen internal
      representation and write it back out into an XML format. What do you
      think, would it be usefull to go back down that path or not?

      Ysgarran.

      p.s.
      Now that I think about it, that code is probably sitting on a hard drive
      that is not currently connected to any computers. I have my doubts
      about how usefull it is at this moment since I believe that PCGen code
      base has migrated quite a bit since that time.
    • Keith Davies
      ... Not terribly, I think. It was decided a long time (*long* time -- about three years ago) that simply changing the syntax from not-XML-LST to XML-LST just
      Message 2 of 6 , Sep 29, 2005
        On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 12:34:29PM -0400, Ysgarran wrote:
        >
        > >I've been thinking about some sort of conversion program to/from
        > >XML/PCGen data set for a long time. However I don't have the time for
        > >it, and it would be moderately difficult because of the PCGen internal
        > >handling of feats and class features.
        >
        > Back a ways when one of the programmers went into PCGen and put in a
        > persistence layer I wrote some code that converted the LST files into
        > XML files. I believe that particular set of code is long gone but I
        > will probalby take a look for it anyways when I get home tonight.
        >
        > I did not read the LST files myself, what I did is put hooks into the
        > persistence layer. That code would take the PCGen internal
        > representation and write it back out into an XML format. What do you
        > think, would it be usefull to go back down that path or not?

        Not terribly, I think. It was decided a long time (*long* time -- about
        three years ago) that simply changing the syntax from not-XML-LST to
        XML-LST just makes the data more verbose without adding much benefit,
        and that it would be better to actually model the data rather than the
        LST files.

        There would be some benefit from the XML perspective in modeling LST
        with XML -- makes it easier to work with other XML tools, at least --
        but PCGen wouldn't gain anything from this at this point. It would
        largely simplify the parsing code, I think, but that would be new code
        that would need to be tested, etc., and would invalidate the tools data
        monkeys currently use.

        That said, it looks like the changes being made now are bringing the
        data model somewhat closer to what we were developing here a couple of
        years ago. Not entirely, but with the changes being made to the
        architecture it may be possible to bring a reasonable XML representation
        to the program.

        Just chatting with Devon. The code changes will make it easier, and he
        wants to use XML when CDOM gets brought in. At least for the character
        file format -- he still wants to use the LST files for other data, for
        now at least.

        *However*, what he's just asked me for is an interesting thing... and
        pretty simple, actually.


        Keith
        --
        Keith Davies "Always code as if the guy who ends up
        keith.davies@... maintaining your code is a psychopath
        keith.davies@... who knows where you live."
        http://www.kjdavies.org/ -- Damian Conway
      • Ysgarran
        Back a ways when one of the programmers went into PCGen and put in a I did not read the LST files myself, what I did is put hooks into the persistence layer.
        Message 3 of 6 , Sep 29, 2005
          Back a ways when one of the programmers went into PCGen and put in a
          I did not read the LST files myself, what I did is put hooks into the
          persistence layer.  That code would take the PCGen internal
          representation and write it back out into an XML format.  What do you
          think, would it be usefull to go back down that path or not? 
              
          Not terribly, I think.  It was decided a long time (*long* time -- about
          three years ago) that simply changing the syntax from not-XML-LST to
          XML-LST just makes the data more verbose without adding much benefit,
          and that it would be better to actually model the data rather than the
          LST files.
            
          Just to be clear on a point.  The result was not just a translation from a LST to a XML file.   Since the XML
          I was emitting was based on the internal PCGen data model the resulting XML did not look like the
          corresponding LST file.  Now, whether that internal PCGen data model is a good direction to the XML
          is a different question.  
          I was impressed with what Frugal did with the XML based character generator 0.1, even though I did not
          grok everything he was doing with it.  From a gut level, that seems to be the best direction for the PCGen XML.

          Ysgarran.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.