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

Re: [wmlprogramming] Re: WURFL patch file

Expand Messages
  • Laszlo Nadai
    After I actually started *doing* it, I realized, that I was wrong (that never happened before) when I insisted to offline WURFL patching. (I also hate to
    Message 1 of 7 , Feb 28, 2003
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      After I actually started *doing* it, I realized, that I was wrong (that never happened
      before) when I insisted to 'offline' WURFL patching.
      (I also hate to admit when Luca is right)

      Basically, the process:
      PublishedWurf.xml + Mypatch.xml = WuflIamUsing.xml
      should be enabled to happen either during runtime or offline

      And it shouldn't matter.
      The beauty of OOD ! Got my point?

      The bad news is, that since I have to re-work the whole thing (the java stuff)
      for the new JAXB anyway, it may take more time, than I expected.
      Which reminds me, hey, Mr. Parhuzamos, I know there are a bunch of good WAP/Java etc...
      guys in Hungary :-)

      Thanks,
      laszlo



      "laszlo_nadai " wrote:

      > Luca,
      > 1 - If we "merge", we don't have to touch any app/utility/... we have.
      > 2 - Merging could be done by running a simple program.
      > 3 - Merging can be 'un-done' (by using the original wurfl :-)
      > 4 - Maintenance of original and patch is independent.
      > 5 - Merging will not happen every hour, so ...
      >
      > Also, it is possible (I have to think about it) that developing the
      > merging utility can be *relatively* painless (XSLT??? or plain java
      > with jaxb???)
      >
      > I fell kind of strongly about this.
      >
      > laszlo
      >
      > --- In wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com, Luca Passani <passani@e...>
      > wrote:
      > >
      > > Well, not exactly. I envision that the software first builds
      > > its internal representation of the WURFl and then modifies it
      > > according to the info it finds in the patch.
      > >
      > > Luca
      > >
      > > laszlo_nadai wrote:
      > >
      > > >I luv tha patch idea.
      > > >I hope I got it right:
      > > >
      > > >We want to have a "utility" which can do:
      > > >
      > > >original_wurfl.xml + my_pathch.xml ==> wurfl.xml
      > > >
      > > >Then I can use newly generated wurfl.xml.
      > > >If either original_wurfl.xml (new release) or my_pathch.xml
      > changes,
      > > >I just run the above thing again.
      > > >
      > > >Correct?
      > > >
      > > >laszlo
      > > >
      > > >--- In wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com, Luca Passani <passani@e...>
      > > >wrote:
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >>While 37000 feet over Greenland, I drafted some sort of spec
      > > >>for the WURFL patch file.
      > > >>Can you please comment on this?
      > > >>In particular, think of the semantics and complexity of
      > > >>
      >
      > Please read the FAQ before you ask questions: http://www.thewirelessfaq.com
      >
      > Visit http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wmlprogramming for archive and subscription options
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      > -
      > [This E-mail scanned for viruses by declude AntiVirus Software]


      -
      [This E-mail scanned for viruses by declude AntiVirus Software]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.