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

Re: XML project

Expand Messages
  • Tom Parker
    Hi Keith, ... What I m doing kinda feels like that :) ... By classification, I think you mean things like assigning a level to a spell, cost to a skill, nature
    Message 1 of 10 , Jul 3, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Keith,

      --- In pcgen@yahoogroups.com, keith.davies@... wrote:
      > The main one is that any sane revision of the code to incorporate it
      > would mean ripping PCGen to shreds and starting over.

      What I'm doing kinda feels like that :)

      > I'd also look toward making the data much more relational. For
      > instance, anything to do with classification belongs *outside* the
      > entity being classified (spell lists especially). This is a purity of
      > theory issue with me, mostly, but it would make many things much easier.

      By classification, I think you mean things like assigning a level to a
      spell, cost to a skill, nature (VIRTUAL, NORMAL) to a Feat and that
      type of thing? That would help avoid cloning, which is one of the
      challenges with the current core.

      > Note that all of the above is said by someone who hasn't been paying
      > much attention to the codebase for a few years ago (some of the PCGen
      > internals may have changed from what I remember to where I thought they
      > should be), but was heavily involved in the XML project.

      No, but it's fascinating to me that while I wasn't involved in the
      PCGen project at the time of the XML discussion, we are now driving to
      the exact path you describe (at least that's how it reads to me). Our
      code base certainly isn't there today, but we have spec'd out what it
      should look like, and there is already a bunch of code toward that
      end... if you're curious v0.5 of the spec is available here:
      http://www.geocities.com/thpr/ I'd certainly be interested in your
      thoughts if you have time to take a glance (yes, it seems a bit long,
      but it's a reasonable read if you understand some of how PCGen works,
      and only sections 8 and 11 are really relevant to your points).

      TP.
      --
      Tom Parker
      PCGen Architecture 2nd
    • keith.davies@kjdavies.org
      ... Among others: Spell: level (spell list), school, subschool, descriptor Feat: type (general, item creation, etc. -- IMC I use an expanded list of feat
      Message 2 of 10 , Jul 3, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 09:32:48PM -0000, Tom Parker wrote:
        > Hi Keith,
        >
        > --- In pcgen@yahoogroups.com, keith.davies@... wrote:
        > > The main one is that any sane revision of the code to incorporate it
        > > would mean ripping PCGen to shreds and starting over.
        >
        > What I'm doing kinda feels like that :)
        >
        > > I'd also look toward making the data much more relational. For
        > > instance, anything to do with classification belongs *outside* the
        > > entity being classified (spell lists especially). This is a purity
        > > of theory issue with me, mostly, but it would make many things much
        > > easier.
        >
        > By classification, I think you mean things like assigning a level to a
        > spell, cost to a skill, nature (VIRTUAL, NORMAL) to a Feat and that
        > type of thing? That would help avoid cloning, which is one of the
        > challenges with the current core.

        Among others:

        Spell: level (spell list), school, subschool, descriptor
        Feat: type (general, item creation, etc. -- IMC I use an expanded list
        of feat types, see http://www.kjdavies.org/rpg/reference/feat/)

        and so on. I have the impression that many of the things that change
        between campaigns are more classification than definition changes (look
        at how TYPE gets pounded in LST files when modifying things).

        It made more sense to me to divorce the classifications from the
        entities.

        Of course, I come from a largely relational background. 1:m? It
        doesn't get stored in the item definition.

        > > Note that all of the above is said by someone who hasn't been paying
        > > much attention to the codebase for a few years ago (some of the
        > > PCGen internals may have changed from what I remember to where I
        > > thought they should be), but was heavily involved in the XML
        > > project.
        >
        > No, but it's fascinating to me that while I wasn't involved in the
        > PCGen project at the time of the XML discussion, we are now driving to
        > the exact path you describe (at least that's how it reads to me). Our
        > code base certainly isn't there today, but we have spec'd out what it
        > should look like, and there is already a bunch of code toward that
        > end... if you're curious v0.5 of the spec is available here:
        > http://www.geocities.com/thpr/ I'd certainly be interested in your
        > thoughts if you have time to take a glance (yes, it seems a bit long,
        > but it's a reasonable read if you understand some of how PCGen works,
        > and only sections 8 and 11 are really relevant to your points).

        I've downloaded and am printing a copy now. I'll get back to you.


        Keith
        --
        Keith Davies "History is made by stupid people
        keith.davies@... "Clever people wouldn't even try
        keith.davies@... "If you want a place in the history books
        http://www.kjdavies.org/ "Then do something dumb before you die."
        -- The Arrogant Worms
      • arawn_darkone
        ... I am also looking at v0.5 spec to what the future may hold for us data monkeys. :)
        Message 3 of 10 , Jul 3, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          > > > Note that all of the above is said by someone who hasn't been paying
          > > > much attention to the codebase for a few years ago (some of the
          > > > PCGen internals may have changed from what I remember to where I
          > > > thought they should be), but was heavily involved in the XML
          > > > project.
          > >
          > > No, but it's fascinating to me that while I wasn't involved in the
          > > PCGen project at the time of the XML discussion, we are now driving to
          > > the exact path you describe (at least that's how it reads to me). Our
          > > code base certainly isn't there today, but we have spec'd out what it
          > > should look like, and there is already a bunch of code toward that
          > > end... if you're curious v0.5 of the spec is available here:
          > > http://www.geocities.com/thpr/ I'd certainly be interested in your
          > > thoughts if you have time to take a glance (yes, it seems a bit long,
          > > but it's a reasonable read if you understand some of how PCGen works,
          > > and only sections 8 and 11 are really relevant to your points).
          >
          > I've downloaded and am printing a copy now. I'll get back to you.

          I am also looking at v0.5 spec to what the future may hold for us data
          monkeys. :)
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.