Scott Sanders wrote:
>
> Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> > Geir Magnusson wrote:
> >
> >> I am very pro XML myself. I think think that since the API takes care
> >> of all details though, putting everything behind a Repository class, it
> >> could be implemented via gerbils...
> >
> >
> > I'd like to see an instance proof of that myself.
> >
> > Smart data structures and dumb code works a lot better than the other way
> > around.[1]
> >
> > Fred Brooks, the Mythical Man Month, as quoted by Eric Raymond [1]:
> >
> > Brooks, Chapter 9: ``Show me your [code] and conceal your [data
> > structures], and I shall continue to be mystified. Show me your [data
> > structures], and I won't usually need your [code]; it'll be obvious.''
> >
> > - Sam Ruby
> >
> > [1]
> > http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/x188.html
>
> I can agree with this. AntGump and Gump rely on the same data
> presentation to do the work. This works very well. Ultimately, both
> will move toward and merge with the Alexandria data, and then we will
> have three systems working on the same data structures. There is
> definite utility in a common data structure.
>
I agree with it too. It just think it's beside the point.
I would prefer to use XML myself to represent the repository. However,
I was able to keep it simple using a properties.
Further, I would like to make jjar support the earliest JDK as possible
w/o resorting to fire and pointy sticks, so that may be a limitation on
the choice of XML parser.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System and Software Consulting
Developing for the web? See http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/
"still climbing up to the shoulders..."
