Re: [pcgen-xml] To restructure or not.
- On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 12:01:31PM -0800, Scott Ellsworth wrote:
>While it may not be needed, I would like to see the entire thing become
> 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
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
Keith Davies I gave my 2yo daughter a strawberry
keith.davies@... Naomi: "Strawberry!"
me: "What do you say?"
Naomi: "*MY* strawberry!"