I've tried to avoid getting involved in this thread; not because I don't
have an opinion or because I can't be bothered to say it but rather because
everyone else involved has mirrored, to a greater or lesser degree, my
opinons, far more eloquently than I could (especially on a Friday
afternoon).
But I think that Peter's response, which I've included verbatim below,
illustrates the crux of the matter.
Xerces is a cross platform product, hence the comments regarding the Windows
camp and the *nix camp, but surely the build environment is so different,
apart from the directory structure, that any Makefile changes (and maybe
even autoconf one day) won't have an effect on the Windows camp (or the Mac
camp? correct me if I'm wrong).
Peter is certainly correct in saying that a major reshuffle of the directory
structure should be tested out fully before being committed. But I still
feel that Murray's original concerns are valid and pertinent.
In an attempt to satisy all users, has anyone considered checking out a
branch in CVS and letting the redevelopment of the build tree take place, be
tested and ratified. Then and only then could the branch be merged back into
the main line.
No simple task I agree, but if this is going to be done, surely it's better
to do it right first time rather than spit out a torrent of patches to fix
problems which should have been detected during testing ... and I won't even
make any side swipes at a certain monopoly which makes an OS and apps for
the PC ...
Please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to fan any flames here; I'm just
offering a potential solution which will please as many of the Xerces users
as possible.
Gary
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter A. Volchek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 17 August 2001 16:41
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Changing include to include/xercesc - Summary and Vote
----- Original Message -----
From: "Murray Cumming" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 18:08
Subject: Re: Changing include to include/xercesc - Summary and Vote
> "Gale, Gary (Factiva)" wrote:
> >
> > I vote +1 (and wish I had the time to try converting the build to an
> > automake driven environment).
>
> I tried it. I found some difficulties with the platform-conditional
> inclusion of some files and directories in the build. I was slowly
> getting there when I lost it all in a disk crash.
>
Ha-ha. That is what I expected. (I mean - "some difficulties")
Actually, the CVS maintaining problem - is just a kind of "lazy bastard"
(c) Erik Rydgren
I do not mind (think that all others also) to properly resolve the name
conflicts or avoid it in the future (for example use xerces and xalan
together).
But this should not be done spontaneously.
Before reorganizing the xerces package and update the CVS, many things
should be done:
- Changing code
- Building Xerces on all supported platfoms
- Retesting Xerces on all platforms
- Building samples on all platforms
- Retesting/running samples on all platforms
- Making a sample that uses Xerces & Xalan (for example). Making sure that
there are no conflicts
- Releasing Xerces files with new structure (still not updating CVS)
- Wait the users callback
- Fix bugs and missed problems
-- Meanwhile continue working on Xerces (Schema, ...)
- And then, announce the new version and update CVS
So, there are things to think about.
Peter A. Volchek
Software Engineer
Metis International, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
