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

To restructure or not.

Expand Messages
  • Frugal
    Has there been any kind of agreement as to wether this project is going to be a data layer only project (i.e. we map from the XML to the current pcgen.core
    Message 1 of 4 , Jan 23, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Has there been any kind of agreement as to wether this project is going to
      be a data layer only project (i.e. we map from the XML to the current
      pcgen.core classes), or if this is going to be a restructuring project (we
      rebuild pcgen.core to reflect the new XML data structure)?

      --
      regards,
      Frugal
      -OS Chimp
    • Keith Davies
      ... The original plan was to revise the data only, replacing LST with XML and not touching the internals at all. However, given where this has taken us, doing
      Message 2 of 4 , Jan 23, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:28:38PM +0000, Frugal wrote:
        > Has there been any kind of agreement as to wether this project is
        > going to be a data layer only project (i.e. we map from the XML to the
        > current pcgen.core classes), or if this is going to be a restructuring
        > project (we rebuild pcgen.core to reflect the new XML data structure)?

        The original plan was to revise the data only, replacing LST with XML
        and not touching the internals at all. However, given where this has
        taken us, doing the internals as well is becoming attractive.

        My recommendation at this point (and from early on) is to revise the
        data, leaving the internals alone and making the loader make LST items
        and passing them to the internals, then branch and revise the internals.
        The idea was to provide a time where both LST and XML worked (to give an
        opportunity to transition, and to be able to compare behavior between
        the two data sets, and fall back on LST if the XML isn't working quite
        right), but to eventually phase out LST.


        Keith
        --
        Keith Davies I gave my 2yo daughter a strawberry
        keith.davies@... Naomi: "Strawberry!"
        me: "What do you say?"
        Naomi: "*MY* strawberry!"
      • Scott Ellsworth
        ... We are going to have to re-architect part of the core at some point anyway, to break the dependence on the persistence layer. This dependence leads
        Message 3 of 4 , Jan 23, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          On Jan 23, 2004, at 7:28 AM, Frugal wrote:

          > Has there been any kind of agreement as to wether this project is
          > going to
          > be a data layer only project (i.e. we map from the XML to the current
          > pcgen.core classes), or if this is going to be a restructuring project
          > (we
          > rebuild pcgen.core to reflect the new XML data structure)?

          We are going to have to re-architect part of the core at some point
          anyway, to break the dependence on the persistence layer. This
          dependence leads directly to the current "reparse a string" design,
          which you have already been working on. Once we go to "parse just
          once", we can add in "add a uid" to get pretty much all of the support
          the new design needs. This will give dramatic space and time benefits,
          I suspect. Further, expressing our persistence layer objects as
          entities with attributes and relationships (which the xml design does)
          allows us to consider any other similar technology - no bad thing.

          I doubt we need to re-architect the core classes beyond how they
          interact with the persistence layer. The new design may open up some
          opportunities for such a refactor, but I do not see it as requiring a
          refactor.

          Scott
        • Keith Davies
          ... While it may not be needed, I would like to see the entire thing become more modularized; I don t want the back end to depend on the front end, and I d
          Message 4 of 4 , Jan 23, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 12:01:31PM -0800, Scott Ellsworth wrote:
            >
            > On Jan 23, 2004, at 7:28 AM, Frugal wrote:
            >
            > > Has there been any kind of agreement as to wether this project is
            > > going to
            > > be a data layer only project (i.e. we map from the XML to the current
            > > pcgen.core classes), or if this is going to be a restructuring project
            > > (we
            > > rebuild pcgen.core to reflect the new XML data structure)?
            >
            > We are going to have to re-architect part of the core at some point
            > anyway, to break the dependence on the persistence layer. This
            > dependence leads directly to the current "reparse a string" design,
            > which you have already been working on. Once we go to "parse just
            > once", we can add in "add a uid" to get pretty much all of the support
            > the new design needs. This will give dramatic space and time benefits,
            > I suspect. Further, expressing our persistence layer objects as
            > entities with attributes and relationships (which the xml design does)
            > allows us to consider any other similar technology - no bad thing.
            >
            > I doubt we need to re-architect the core classes beyond how they
            > interact with the persistence layer. The new design may open up some
            > opportunities for such a refactor, but I do not see it as requiring a
            > refactor.

            While it may not be needed, I would like to see the entire thing become
            more modularized; I don't want the back end to depend on the front end,
            and I'd like to be able to replace the back end entirely if it suits my
            purposes (at least as far as managing the data is concerned). I suspect
            that a refactor will shake out replacing the current persistence
            mechanisms.


            Keith
            --
            Keith Davies I gave my 2yo daughter a strawberry
            keith.davies@... Naomi: "Strawberry!"
            me: "What do you say?"
            Naomi: "*MY* strawberry!"
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.