Re: [DATA-XML] XML draft (WAS: Heres your chnace)
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Frugal" <frugal@p...> wrote:
> <quote who="andargor">
> > --- In email@example.com, "dlm1065" <dlm1065@h...> wrote:
> >> Yes I thought that would work too. The only thing is that removes
> > ALL
> >> formatting not just the wiki word can we say no returns just one
> >> stream of data???
> >> Can I say even more unreadable??
> > Heheh. Then just put a link in to the file...
> > BTW, your model differs greatly from the low-level "XML
> > language" being worked over at PCGen-XML, and Frugal's export. :)current
> > A three-way merge seems unevitable.
> I think the word you are looking for in 'impossible' ;O)
> The low level XML design will require PCGen being rewritten from the
> ground up. Doug's high level schema can be shoehorned into the
> system, but there is absolutely no way the low level schema can beused
> with the current code base. I am personally never expecting the lowlevel
> XML design to be used in PCGen, it would be a completely differentproject
> just with the original data entry (LST) in common.layer,
> The current design of PCgen has zero separation between the data
> the application layer and the presentation layer. As a result of theresult in a
> current arcitecture radiacally redesigning the data layer will
> complete rewrite of the application layer and the presentationlayer.
> I have tried on a number of occasions to separate the 3 layers
> man hours on a fast machine with good refactoring tools), but theyare so
> incestuous that nothing short of a ground-up clean-roomreimplementation
> will ever separate the 3 layers.I share your views completely, except that I would add a separation
> -OS Chimp
between data and code (e.g. what a feat "is" versus what a
In any case, your export of the existing LST data is a step in the
right direction. It facilitates the parsing of the data to transform
it into an application-specific format, such as your XML engine
The target should be to transform the LST data to a high-level
format. I believe you are saying as much above, since the XML engine
approach is very specific and that format would be the end product of
any transformation, and would be difficult to transform into anything
else that is generic.
So what has Doug and the BoD to say about all this? What's the plan
Having toyed with the current code myself, I agree that a total
revamp is necessary. PCGen 6.0.0 would be an entirely new engine,
I don't see any benefit in having intermediate steps towards this.
Half-measures, such as using your export into the existing engine
(tweaked for it) only would lead to wasted effort. XML is a new
model, and needs a new approach.
If there is a vote to be made, rewrite the whole thing, line up the
data monkeys with a generic XML format, and in the meantime provide
an XML to LST converter for legacy purposes until the new engine is
Whatever you decide, it'll be a step in the right direction (away
from the statu quo) ;)