* Durk Talsma -- Friday 02 May 2008: > You make it seem as if I deliberately refused to comply with a > standard. However, that has never been an issue, because the > groundnet parser predates most of the more advanced UFO based > editing facilities.
No, I didn't make it seem like you intentionally broke *eventual* advanced live-editing of AI/TM data in an UFO editor. I just used the occasion to, once again, point out that AI/TM don't use the generic XML reader, but have their own, and that this ignoring of fgfs-standards and consistency has more disadvantages than just additional bugs (also due to much less testing). It prevents later, originally unplanned interaction with other parts of fgfs, while not having any noteworthy advantages. The AI/TM parts are IMHO a bit alien to the rest of fgfs. (Also because of FSF ... my pet complaint. ;-) > Just like FDMs, which also have their own parser, [...] Yes, similar. But there it doesn't hurt, as there isn't much that we would like to visually live-edit, unlike taxiing routes and partking slots, which obviously refer to our terrain, and displaying terrain is one of the major *visual* jobs of fgfs. And the main FDM's are standalone applications, after all. > Then, you found out the format of the xml file was > not to your liking. No, I found out earlier, but didn't complain. I can't really remember when it was committed. Must have been on holiday or something. > Admittedly, being able to use the UFO for ground network using > the UFO has some limited appeal, but is this really something that > we seriously want to persue? No. The thread was about alleged XML parser bugs. And I pointed out that AI/TM does its own stuff, unlike the rest of fgfs (minus the FDMs), and that these non-standard ways does also bring us other surprises. > Therefore, I feel justified in defending it, [...] Sure. I would do it myself. I'm aware that you are annoyed by my criticism, and I would be just as well. But then again, I'm annoyed whenever I see inconsistencies. I fix some if I can, I work around other. I spent hours to write a Nasal-based XML reader, mainly for your files. I spend hours for writing the parsexml() Nasal function. I would have to spend again some time to write your file format. So I reserve the right to be annoyed. :-P > I therefore assume that your comments strictly reflect your > personal views, and not an official flightgear policy. Correct. Mostly my views. I'm not a policy maker, I just describe some policies that were made (but never written down) in times when Erik/David/Jim were around years ago, and there was a consensus about some of them. Most of it is common sense, though often it turns out not to be that common after all. Some of my early patches were rejected because I violated such policies. > So if this is really an issue that lives among developers then > it should be addressed very soon. However, if it turns out that > the overhaul is mainly driven by your desire to get the UFO based > network editing going than it's not going to happen until after > I've tackled more pressing issues. Nope, there's no reason to change anything now or in the next years. Things are as they are. I wouldn't have time for bigger UFO extensions, and maybe nobody would want/use them, anyway. Let's just keep consistency in mind, even if we don't see at the moment why this might pay off later. > Of course, there's a golden rule in open source land: If you > want something changed, you can always do it yourself. Please > consider updating taxidraw as well, while you're at it. :-) Sheesh ... m. ;-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. Use priority code J8TL2D2. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
