[G11ntoolkit-developer] RE: Further to my feature request...

[Bill R. <bi...@wi...>]

Hi Raymond,

I am sorry that I have taken so long to respond. I am changing my DNS =
routings and my hosting service and I guess it is playing havoc with my =
mail and my ability to post to this list.

I agree that the XLIFF Editor should be packaged separately. The editor =
depends on classes in the G11NToolKit but the toolkit does not depend on =
the editor.

As for the rest of the toolkit, I suppose that the pseudoxlator and =
xlclassname utilities could be separated from the rest of the classes =
since again they depend on classes in the toolkit but the toolkit does =
not depend on them. The only exception to this is that the toolkit =
process control in the Ant files uses the xlclassname utility in its =
normal detok processing for Java LRB files. This may cause a little =
issue but with separate jar files it should not be a major issue.

The rest of the class structure pretty much needs to stay together in a =
single jar since it represents the main classes of the toolkit.

What other parts of the toolkit are you thinking may need to be =
separated?

You have a concern about overlap in function between omegat and the =
toolkit. Do you need finer granularity in the toolkit classes or are you =
more concerned at a higher level with overall function. If you need a =
finer granularity we can probably just factor the classes to see where =
we can split them. This makes more classes but may make using the =
toolkit easier.

Thanks. Bill