At 04:32 PM 9/12/01 +1000, Peter West wrote:
>I concur with much of what you have said here, and I am much more
>comfortable in C than in Java. C++ I have always avoided. That said, I
>would personally prefer to pursue the Java development for career
>reasons - I have much more chance of getting work in Java than in C.
Can't argue with that. :-) Your design contributions are definitely welcome.
>What I think is most interesting about the C project is the chance to
>sit down and design the thing from the ground up in terms of good old
>algorithms + data structures. I believe that such a rethink is also
>necessary for the Java project. I also believe that the same design
>will serve both implementions. Is there any reason why it would not?
This is my intention. A FOP 2 was rejected by the community but I think
there is still a requirement for a new project, that starts clean. And I
know there is a developer base that simply does not want to work with Java.
But I definitely wish for design decisions made in xslfo-proc to inform
decisions made in FOP.
You are right...I do in fact believe that this comes down to good old
algorithms and data structures. I can't quite put my finger on it, but
Java-style OOP failed us (by us I mean FOP) at least a year ago. What
happened, I think, is that the initial design was very data-centric, and
although the base classes were pretty good, they broke down when a number of
XSL requirements had to be implemented. Keiron has now released a new design
doc, and the layout managers described in there, really follow up on
concepts that have been discussed for quite some time now. At some point,
when you have enough "managers", you start thinking, why am I doing this
with OOP?
>My own view is that the common design can be expressed in whatever
>combination of classes is most appropriate to that design.
>
>I have not volunteered for any particular aspect of the design for the
>simple reason that I am not yet comfortable with the spec and the design
>as a whole, but I will be following proceedings with great interest, and
>as soon as I am confident that I know where I am headed, I will put my
>hand up. I have lately (apart from battling the 'flu) been looking at
>the handling of properties, an area which I think is a good candidate
>for lots of static fields and class methods. I was looking at extending
>my experiments in the building of the FO tree, when I realized that I
>would have to know what to do with properties before I could do much
>with the FO tree.
I think Karen will appreciate assistance with the properties work.
Regards,
Arved
Fairly Senior Software Type
e-plicity (http://www.e-plicity.com)
Wireless * B2B * J2EE * XML --- Halifax, Nova Scotia
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
