jw3 commented on a change in pull request #452:
URL: https://github.com/apache/incubator-daffodil/pull/452#discussion_r528912729



##########
File path: daffodil-schematron/README.md
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+<!--
+  Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
+  contributor license agreements.  See the NOTICE file distributed with
+  this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
+  The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0
+  (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with
+  the License.  You may obtain a copy of the License at
+
+      http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
+
+  Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
+  distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
+  WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
+  See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
+  limitations under the License.
+-->
+
+Schematron Validation
+===
+
+Daffodil Validator for Schematron
+
+XSLT implementation adapted from the [Camel Schematron 
Component](https://github.com/apache/camel/tree/master/components/camel-schematron).

Review comment:
       > Adapted in what way?
   
   Adapted as in it was a java implementation that provided the blueprint for 
loading and constructing the xslt framework.  I converted it to a pure scala 
implementation.  So maybe "converted" is better than "adapted", I dont know.
   
   The gist of it is I wanted to be sure to point credit back there because I 
definitely didnt dig into the weeds to understand all of the xslt involved, 
really just applied heaping amount of scala sugar to their logic.  Which ended 
up restructuring it quite a bit, but still.
   
   > There are files below that are included (such as a readme.txt) that may 
not be meaningful in Daffodil context. Were they included by mistake or is 
there a "include everything" approach
   
   Noted this above in a comment.  I didnt think too hard about it, but I think 
we can remove them safely after looking over things.
   
   >  .. here where we're only modifying the tree from Camel in minimal ways so 
as, for example, to facilitate diffs/merges of fixes etc. from Camel to here, 
or vice versa?
   
   No the "adaptation" here is one-way one-time, any fixes we would notice from 
their work would be manual ports to ours.




----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]


Reply via email to