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

Re: [pcgen-xml] .MOD, .FORGET and .COPY

Expand Messages
  • Brass Tilde
    ... is ... all ... key ... OK, but I don t see where that changes the solution much, if at all. ... Neither. When automatically converting, you also
    Message 1 of 49 , Nov 14, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      > <quote who="STILES, BRAD">
      > > Names may be identical, ID's should not. Just because the name of both
      > > "Arcane Master" doesn't mean that the ID will be. If that means that
      > > .MODs, etc, need to be keyed on the ID rather than the name, then do be
      > > it. In practice that likely means that some method of determining the
      > > will have to be in the UI, along with possibly a method for entering the
      > > .MODs themselves.
      > My original question regarded automaticlly coverting the data from LST to
      > XML.

      OK, but I don't see where that changes the solution much, if at all.

      > The problem as I see it is this:
      > Publisher A has a feat 'foo'
      > Publisher B has a feat 'foo'
      > Publisher C expands on the feat 'foo' from publisher A.
      > when we convert do we have :
      > A_feats.xml
      > <feat id="feat.foo" />
      > B_feats.xml
      > <feat id="feat.foo" />

      Neither. When automatically converting, you also automatically add an ID.
      Whether that ID is constructed from some combination of the publisher name,
      the title of the work, and the item name, or a hash of those, or a GUID[1],
      or something else, doesn't really matter, as long as they are unique.

      Given the differences between LST and XML formats, and that one of the
      *reasons* for the conversion is to tighten things up a bit, I don't think a
      completely automatic process is going to be possible. Some issues will
      likely have to be manually resolved.

      > C_feats.xml
      > <feat trans="modify" id="feat.foo" />

      This is likely to be one of those that needs to be manually resolved.

      > At which point we have 2 objects with the same ID.

      Never. That's the point of having IDs.
    • Scott Ellsworth
      ... Yep. Serious ones. Go take a look at how we manage things in pcgen currently. There are no primary keys, and we analyze strings like
      Message 49 of 49 , Nov 23, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        On Nov 14, 2003, at 3:47 PM, Brass Tilde wrote:

        >> On Friday 14 November 2003 20:03, Brass Tilde wrote:
        >> We currently have >6Mb of data files... 30,000 lines so
        >> probably 25,000 items
        > And you had performace problems with that tiny little thing? One of
        > the
        > tables in our main database, constantly transacted against, currently
        > has
        > over 4 million rows. Several others have in excess of a million. That
        > doesn't count the ancillary databases used for non-Core operations. No
        > primary keys *really* sucks in that environment.

        Yep. Serious ones. Go take a look at how we manage things in pcgen
        currently. There are no primary keys, and we analyze strings like
        "Foo|BAR|fizBot|PREQ:STR>3:Green" with a string tokenizer on "|" and
        then several more on ":" to see whether we should show something in
        green or bold, then eval the prequisite (stored in string form) to see
        if the character meets it, and thus should be show in red.

        Last time I checked, showing the feat screen with just the Big 3 and
        Monte's ranger requires running something like 85,000 strings through a
        bonus checker. I believe that some optimization work has been done
        since then, but we have not set up real dependencies between objects,
        partially because of a lack of keys, and thus we end up re-doing a lot
        of work on tab display.

        This technique was not a bad one when we had just a few items, with
        relatively simple formulas, but we now have zillions of them. Having
        unique ids and objects would make it really, really easy to find
        objects by key, so we could then parse the formulas only once and
        evaluate them as needed without lots of code knowing the difference.

        If all we do is provide a unique id that can be used in maps/sets for
        object lookup, and get all the refs hooked up right. we will have done
        a good thing. If we also parse the formulas once, we will cause
        probably three or four orders of magnitude improvement in
        display/calculation speed. As a bonus, we could determine those things
        to be drawn in a given font/color and paint those, which can result in
        three orders of magnitude improvement in draw time on MacOS X.
        (Changing fonts/colors is pricey, as it goes through a compositor.)

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