Re: [Etester-devel] Re: E-Tester 2.1.2

[Vassilios T. <bi...@cs...>]

   I have to agree with Gunnar here. Taking out to_string is a bad idea. 
You don't change the interface on your clients. You just hope to 
convince them of the superiority of the new interface, deprecate the 
old, but you still let them use it :) Besides, to_string is quite 
helpful when you get started with a test harness which happens a lot for 
3311.
   On the other hand, I noticed that to_string was buggy for 2.1.0, so 
maybe it's better it's out. If that's the case, please let us know, and 
I'm sure we'll live without it for now. Eventually, I would personally 
like to see it back.
   Finally, even though the other changes for 2.1.2 were good, we cannot 
keep changing the version that is available at sourceforge, if we want 
students to download it from there. The last thing I want to do is deal 
with complaints that students were using the wrong etester version or 
something like that.
   As a result, I would rather take a version such as 2.1.2, put it on 
the course web page, and have students download it from there. As much 
as software is a living thing, for code that is distributed to students, 
I would prefer something "dead" :)
   I think the plan should be the following: Dave lets us know whether 
to_string can come back before the end of the week working correctly. If 
  so, make that change, call it 2.1.3 and that's what we'll give to the 
students. If not, we'll go with 2.1.2.
   How does it sound?
   Bil

Gunnar Gotshalks wrote:
> Hi Dave,
> 
> Responses interspersed with your message.
> 
> At 6:04 PM -0400 9/9/03, Dave Makalsky wrote:
> 
>> E-Tester 2.1.2 has been released.
> 
> 
> I downloaded and tried it on my dictionary system.  It failed to 
> compile, no to_string feature, see below.
> 
>> Changelog:
>>
>> - indexing clauses have been updated to reflect the current version 
>> number
> 
> 
> Good.
> 
>> - As per Gunnar's suggestion the folder is now named etester2.1.2 and not
>> etester2-dev
> 
> 
> Thank you.  It helps the user keep track of the different versions -- I 
> have now three:
> 2.0, 2.1 and 2.1.2.  Oops, need to remove 2.1.
> 
>> - to_string has been removed since to_html is superior ... this will 
>> eventually
>>   be replaced with to_xml
> 
> 
> Thank goodness for this message as I would have been completely lost 
> without it.   I suggest that with every new version you give a change 
> log.  I do not believe that I am in the minority in saying that I have 
> may other things I want to do besides spending time reverse engineering 
> systems to find differences.
> 
> Sorry but more negativity,  Using your statement, I replaced to_string 
> with to_html.   The compilation failed.  I now find out that the 
> parameters have changed.  My question, after searching for the feature 
> (which class is it in? I assume it is in the HTML_REPORTING cluster but 
> there are three classes tosearch).
> 
> My point.  Why do I have to search?  The comment to_string has been 
> replaced by to_html needs to be expanded to somelike the following.
> 
> to_string has been replaced by to_html.  In version 2.0 the use of 
> to_string was
>    print(to_string)
> The use of to_html is similar as follows
>    print(to_html(output_file_name))
> 
> I have not tried that.  Is that correct?  Or do I have to do more trial 
> and error work?
> 
> Please, when making changes for clear, unambiguous instructions for 
> users about the changes.  The computing world, and even the technology 
> world in general, has too many people and instances that like game 
> playing and think that all users should spend hours experimenting with 
> their systems when changes take place.
> 
> Please tell me, and other users exactly what changes I need to make to 
> have old programs work.  This is very important as I have examples for 
> students that are "old" and on Prism they are using v2.1 or v2.1.2 so my 
> examples all fail.  I have may other things to to besides trial and 
> error playing with etester  (for example I have to prepare for a COSC 
> 3401 class in 45 minutes).    I repeat such instructions, should be 
> industry standard.
> 
> I also note that you are planing on changing from to_html to to_xml. 
> Thus you are expecting me and others, to edit all old programs now and 
> again in the future.  This is not good design.   The interface should be 
> the most stable part of the system.  It is the most critical and most 
> time consuming for user's of your system to learn and then modify.
> 
> If you are going to change the name then change it to  to_sgml because 
> SGML is the abstract standard that includes HTML, XML, Bookmaster, 
> Lector, and other tagging systems.  For variations you have   
> to_sgml_html, to_sgml_xml but these are additions to your system.  Do 
> not remove such features as that forces all clients to be edited.
> 
> Cheers ... Gunnar
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Welcome to geek heaven.
> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> _______________________________________________
> Etester-devel mailing list
> Ete...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/etester-devel
>