How does this deal with the user data. It used to be keyed off of pod id and rim name. If there is only one pod, then that means the rim names have to be unique across the whole curnit.
Many of the rim names in the old curnit format (one pod per step), were "undefined1", "undefined2". At least because they were inside of pods we could identify the context of the rim by finding the pod and doing our best to parse the xmlencoder for that pod. If there is one pod, then I assume that means there will be one giant xmlencoder file that contains all the steps. It will be pretty difficult to parse this to figure out the context of a rim. Additionally the navigation log was based on the pod id. So with one pod, the navigation log will no longer be meaningful. Having multiple pods was a nice abstraction from the specific implementation of pas, onto which tools like the reporting parts of the sds could be built. I agree that the way it was working with multiple pods, and xmlencoder was not good. But replacing that with a single giant xmlencoder file will make the situation worse from the student data point of view. Scott Turadg wrote: > Ok, I've gone ahead with the plan. See > http://www.telscenter.org/jira/browse/PAS-508 > and http://fisheye3.cenqua.com/changelog/tels/?cs=2136 . > > So now curnits spit out by the converter have just ONE pod. All the > beans go in there. When we figure out a workable system for reuse, we > can add it in then. > > The ProjectConverter has a boolean flag for whether to *share* the pod > among all the beans or let them each have their own. Right now it's > settable only in code, since we should be careful about switching that > flag. > > I made the PasCurnitUtils so it can tell the difference between > sharing pods and individual pods, but I haven't been able to test it > thoroughly. Tony, I hope you can add more tests to > PasCurnitUtilsTest. Good work on making that. > > I'll write in the other thread on the move methods. > > > On Jul 19, 6:40 pm, "Anthony Perritano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> right on. i think it will make it easier to built better tools, debug pod >> serialization problems..etc yes our original reuse plan kinda fades away. >> but maybe we should think about reuse on the bean level, if such a thing can >> be done. >> >> -Tony >> >> On 7/19/07, Turadg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >>> Tony and other Pas developers, please take a look at this proposal and >>> let me know what you think. Particularly, what are your concerns? >>> I'll try to address them. >>> >>> http://www.telscenter.org/confluence/display/PAS/Proposal+for+one+pod... >>> >>> -t >>> > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SAIL-Dev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SAIL-Dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
