At 03:35 PM 6/27/2005 -0700, Ted Leung wrote:
On Jun 27, 2005, at 2:12 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
At 01:20 PM 6/27/2005 -0700, Ted Leung wrote:
If we are seriously considering going to a domain specific XML for
0.7, then I don't think its worthwhile to spend a lot ot time
patching parcel.xml.
I'm fairly sure I've spent more time discussing the change than I
will on implementing it. For that matter, I will probably spend
more time running the tests afterward. ;)
It's not the amount of time that concerns me, but the amount of churn
for developers. My previous comments were not intended as a veto,
just a mild statement of preference.
Makes sense. But there won't be any actual churn unless somebody 1) comes
up with another format, and 2) convinces John it's a good idea. :)
In the meantime, moving to a "parcel:" format for URIs will help me get rid
of most of our remaining parcel.xml files, and at least some of the
load-time overhead associated with them, as well as remove an extra parsing
pass from the parcel loader. Right now, implementing the '<namespace>'
element requires an extra parsing pass, but this pass would not be
necessary if all parcels have algorithmically-fixed namespaces.
But, I can't get there without first changing the namespaces for all the
test parcels. Finally, I'd like the parcel loader to stop requiring parent
packages to have a parcel.xml in order for a child package to have
one. All of these things are a bit easier once the parcel loader doesn't
need to support arbitrary XML namespaces for packages.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
