Paul, thanks for the introduction.
Prasith, we started work on a Java LLRP library implementation a couple of
weeks ago with Basil Gasser, a student at the Swiss Auto-ID Lab, doing most
of the coding. Previously, we had already implemented EPCIS, TDT, RP, ALE,
and RM and made them available as open-source at www.accada.org .
When the initial JAVA code from U of A got committed we noticed a couple of
things that we considered not ideal:
* it is not using LLRPdef.xml
* the code generator is passive - it requires manual tweaks. IMHO this is a
big issue from a maintenance perspective - especially when the generated
code gets checked into cvs as it is currently.
* the code generator mixes parsing with code generation
* not sure whether all of LLRP is actually supported
I tried to raise some of the points on the mailing list earlier, but except
for John and Gordon (perl and c++), there was no reply from the Java
developer(s). Just wondering whether you agree with my comments above?
Here is our current thinking:
- Generate the LLRP Java Library using Apache Velocity (if this does not
work, we'll build a java code gen)
- Use LLRPdef.xml
- Output a set of classes with public methods which will be identical/very
similar to the U of A code. I don't think the LLRP spec leaves a lot of room
there.
Does this make sense?
- Christian
--
Christian Floerkemeier PhD
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Auto-ID Lab, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
phone: +1-617-324-1984
________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul
Dietrich
Sent: Donnerstag, 26. Juli 2007 12:02
To: [email protected]
Subject: [ltk-d] Java library (ies)
Weve seen interest from multiple parties for Java library
development. I want to ensure that our toolkit Java resources are being use
to produce the best library we can.
I think it makes sense for Christian, Prasith, Kyle, and any other
that are interested in *developing* and *supporting* Java to engage in
discussion here on how to move forward with the Java toolkit(s).
I have seen discussion on the merits of code generation, but I dont
think there is any disagreement that if we are using code generation, we
should use the Common machine descriptions. Is there any other technical
justification to have two separate java toolkits?
If there is not sufficient technical justification, what is involved
in merging this new effort with the existing one?
Regards,
Paul
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
llrp-toolkit-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/llrp-toolkit-devel
