tinyTiM - The tiny Topic Maps engine

Re: [tinyTiM-discuss] tinyTiM MIO vs. TMAPIX I/O From: Hannes Niederhausen <h.niederhausen@go...> - 2009-08-18 12:46 Hi, As long there is an IO library I don't mind how it is called ;) Well I guess you won't drop TMAPIX IO and maintaining two similar libraries is not very efficient. Long story short: I agree. (which means +1 :) ) regards Hannes On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Lars Heuer<heuer@se...> wrote: > Hi all, > > I wonder if I should drop tinyTiM MIO in the near future. > > I added tinyTiM's JSON Topic Maps writer and the XTM writers to the > TMAPIX I/O project. That required only 3 - 5 lines code changes since > the writers do not used much of tinyTiM's internal API. The writers in > the TMAPIX I/O project operate upon TMAPI and should therefor work > with any TMAPI 2.0 compatible engine. > > The CXTMWriter may require some more work, though; and I did not look > at the CTMWriter yet. > > Anyway, if you look closely at tinyTiM's MIO package you'll notice > that it contains very few dependencies at tinyTiM (thanks to the > Streaming API). > > I won't remove tinytim.mio tomorrow or next week, I just want to hear > what the users of tinyTiM think about such a step (yes, I mean you > both ;)). > > Best regards, > Lars > -- > Semagia > <http://www.semagia.com> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day > trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on > what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with > Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july > _______________________________________________ > tinyTiM-discuss mailing list > tinyTiM-discuss@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tinytim-discuss > -- Onotoa - Simply create your Topic Maps schemas. http://onotoa.topicmapslab.de http://www.topicmapslab.de/people/Hannes_Niederhausen

Re: [tinyTiM-discuss] tinyTiM MIO vs. TMAPIX I/O From: Lars Heuer <heuer@se...> - 2009-08-18 13:00 Hi Hannes, > Well I guess you won't drop TMAPIX IO and maintaining two similar > libraries is not very efficient. Well, I hope TMAPIX I/O is useful for other projects as well. At least as long as there is no writer/reader interface in TMAPI. Code which uses TMAPI is ideally independent of any particular engine, so TMAPIX I/O brings the user closer to that goal than tinyTiM MIO since tinytim-mio only knows how to setup the TinyTimMapInputHandler but knows nothing about other engines or TMAPI. Best regards, Lars -- Semagia <http://www.semagia.com>

Re: [tinyTiM-discuss] tinyTiM MIO vs. TMAPIX I/O From: Hannes Niederhausen <h.niederhausen@go...> - 2009-08-18 13:07 Hi Lars, > Well, I hope TMAPIX I/O is useful for other projects as well. At > least as long as there is no writer/reader interface in TMAPI. Code > which uses TMAPI is ideally independent of any particular engine, so > TMAPIX I/O brings the user closer to that goal than tinyTiM MIO since > tinytim-mio only knows how to setup the TinyTimMapInputHandler but > knows nothing about other engines or TMAPI. Well I hope so too. It wasn't criticism, when I said you wouldn't drop TMAPIX I/O. On the contrary I like the portability of it :) best regards Hannes -- Onotoa - Simply create your Topic Maps schemas. http://onotoa.topicmapslab.de http://www.topicmapslab.de/people/Hannes_Niederhausen

Re: [tinyTiM-discuss] tinyTiM MIO vs. TMAPIX I/O From: Markus Ueberall <markus.ueberall@gm...> - 2009-08-18 14:04 Lars Heuer schrieb: > I wonder if I should drop tinyTiM MIO in the near future. > To make the decision process a bit more challenging: *-2* -- That's what I'd love to say :p, but seriously, while I have yet to review/compare the individual TMAPIX interfaces, the more generic they are, the better. A short example how to migrate between the two libraries in question would be nice (and also an occasion to fill the wiki). :) For those who want to support both TMAPI 1.x and 2.x backends, this shouldn't change much anyway, right? (So, actually, my vote is +1) Ad astra, Markus

Re: [tinyTiM-discuss] tinyTiM MIO vs. TMAPIX I/O From: Lars Heuer <heuer@se...> - 2009-08-18 14:17 Hi Markus, >> I wonder if I should drop tinyTiM MIO in the near future. >> > To make the decision process a bit more challenging: *-2* :P > -- That's what I'd love to say :p, but seriously, while I have yet to > review/compare the individual TMAPIX interfaces, the more generic they > are, the better. A short example how to migrate between the two > libraries in question would be nice (and also an occasion to fill the > wiki). :) Yes, there will be documentation, of course. The main change will be the package name, the interfaces / implementations are direct copies from tinyTiM, so I don't expect that it causes any trouble to migrate. IIRC you use semagia-mio directly and bypass tinytim-mio anyway, right? Then you shouldn't recognize any change. > For those who want to support both TMAPI 1.x and 2.x backends, this > shouldn't change much anyway, right? (So, actually, my vote is +1) I didn't test it with tinyTiM 1.5 / TMAPI 1, but it may work. You can't use the TMAPIX writers, of course. They use the TMAPI 2.0 interfaces. Best regards, Lars -- Semagia <http://www.semagia.com>

Re: [tinyTiM-discuss] tinyTiM MIO vs. TMAPIX I/O From: Lars Heuer <heuer@se...> - 2009-08-18 15:03 [...] >> For those who want to support both TMAPI 1.x and 2.x backends, this >> shouldn't change much anyway, right? (So, actually, my vote is +1) > I didn't test it with tinyTiM 1.5 / TMAPI 1, but it may work. You > can't use the TMAPIX writers, of course. They use the TMAPI 2.0 > interfaces. Testing revision 85 against tinyTiM 1.5/TMAPI 1.0 caused 714 errors (running 714 tests) which is a bit, hmmm, suboptimal. Revision 86 works partially with tinyTiM 1.5: Failures: 62, Errors: 126. The problem is a helper class that uses TMAPI 2.0 to convert XTM 1.0 PSIs to TMDM PSIs. Anyway, TMAPI 1.0 has no priority for me, so it's unlikely that I put much effort into fixing the remaining errors. The tinyTiM 1.5 tests are not executed by default (only Ontopia, tinyTiM 2.x, generic TMAPI), you can test it with ant test-tinytim-1 Best regards, Lars -- Semagia <http://www.semagia.com>

Re: [tinyTiM-discuss] tinyTiM MIO vs. TMAPIX I/O From: Lars Heuer <heuer@se...> - 2009-08-18 15:16 [...] > Anyway, TMAPI 1.0 has no priority for me, so it's unlikely that I put > much effort into fixing the remaining errors. The tinyTiM 1.5 tests > are not executed by default (only Ontopia, tinyTiM 2.x, generic > TMAPI), you can test it with > ant test-tinytim-1 Now: ant test.tinytim-1 :) Solving <http://code.google.com/p/tmapix/issues/detail?id=7> should generate less errors, though. Best regards, Lars -- Semagia <http://www.semagia.com>

Re: [tinyTiM-discuss] tinyTiM MIO vs. TMAPIX I/O From: Lars Heuer <heuer@se...> - 2009-08-19 14:21 [...] > Solving <http://code.google.com/p/tmapix/issues/detail?id=7> should > generate less errors, though. I created a TMAPIX i/o snapshot (0.3.0): <http://code.google.com/p/tmapix/downloads/list> which contains the same set of readers as tinyTiM and the XTM 1.0 / 2.0 and JTM writer. The XTMTopicMapReader / XTM10TopicMapReader have a method to disable / enable the translation to TMDM (disabled by default). If the user disables the translation, the readers work with TMAPI 1.0/tinyTiM 1.5 without exceptions. The tests enable the translation, though. So you'll get the same set of failures / errors if you try ``ant test.tinytim-1``. But it works if you don't enable the translation in your app. Best regards, Lars -- Semagia <http://www.semagia.com>

1 message has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.