Hi Sebastian,
Up to now, we've been pretty flexible on the tools chosen for each repo. If we were to standardize, I would lean toward Maven since we have an SPDX plugin to generate SPDX documents from Maven and it is currently being used by the Java tools. That being said, I have not problems personally working with multiple tools for different repos (as long as I can make it work from an Eclipse IDE). For the validation - there is definitely an advantage to implementing the validation close to the parsing in that better, more detailed error messages can be generated. I would propose we make the validators programmatically accessible. In the current Java code, a method "validate()" is implemented for all of the SPDX model objects. For future implementations, this interface could be improved with more structured detailed information. A couple other related topics: . Languages(s) used for the libraries. We currently have language bindings for Java, Python and Go. I am personally interested in the Java bindings since it was the basis for the command line tools. . API architecture and definitions. For the Java libraries, I am thinking we could create interface definitions for how to access the SPDX model objects. This would ease the integration of the different implementations for common tools. One example would be the validate method present in all model objects. Regards, Gary From: Schuberth, Sebastian [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2016 2:34 AM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: SPDX Tools Repositories Proposal Hi Gary, I basically agree to your suggested split, I just believe that format-specific tooling (like validators) should go to the library's repository. That is, a tag/value validator should be a module next to the library module in the tag/value repository. Also, when it comes to the choices for development tools, does it make sense to agree on some standards, and e.g. recommend to use Gradle instead of Maven as a build tool (just as an example)? Regards, Sebastian From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2016 18:44 To: [email protected] Subject: SPDX Tools Repositories Proposal Greetings all, As we are working through the SPDX goals for next year, there were a lot of suggestions made which involve improvements to the SPDX tools. On the tech call this week, we also talked about some changes that would improve the performance and help with the maintainability of the Java libraries. We are also getting quite a bit more interest in contributing to the tools. With this increased activity on the tools code, I would like to float the idea of breaking the current SPDX tools into more than one repo. This could be limited to the Java tools or it could apply to the other language bindings as well. I would propose 3 repos: - RDF/XML libraries - libraries that can read/write the RDF/XML code - Tag libraries - parsers and writers for the tag/value format - Tools - Tools which use the 2 above libraries to translate, pretty print, validate documents (all of the existing tools) The advantage would be to reduce the coordination necessary between the changes in the tag/value code and the RDF/XML code. It would also allow the building of tools with a smaller footprint if only one of the formats are required. The disadvantage is if there are changes needed in both tag/value and RDF for the tools, commits and versions would need to be coordinated across the repos. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks, Gary ------------------------------------------------- Gary O'Neall Principal Consultant Source Auditor Inc. Mobile: 408.805.0586 Email: [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Spdx-tech mailing list [email protected] https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
