Re: [Jsynthlib-devel] Change project structure

[Packe <pa...@ya...>]

Hi again,

I have now been given admin rights to this project (thanks Joachim). What I understood from Joachim is that there is no active maintainer of the JSynthlib project today. So I'm now willing to assume that role.

I've been sketching on sort of a roadmap and would like to get some feedback:

Change project structure and fix ant script 
Create system test cases to secure basic driver functionality - assuming that the current drivers work as expected...
Fix existing bugs (can those of you who know any bugs please report them on SF?)
1.0 release - As discussed in this thread: 10th anniversary
I'm hoping to do that this year or early next
Once the 1.0 release is done I think focus should be on merging the refactor branch to trunk and straighten up the API

If anybody still believes in this project help is very much appreciated!

One thing though, I think a problem previously has been that code has been delivered without prior review. Therefore I would like patches being submitted through the patch page on SF instead of direct merges to trunk. I (and possibly another volunteer) will monitor these patches and provide feedback/merge the patches as they are submitted.

I'll wait one week from now to let you get back with your thoughts before starting any work at all.

Chris, would you be able to explain what you did for changes to the ant script on the refactor branch?

BR
/Pascal

17 okt 2013 kl. 17:07 skrev Packe <pa...@ya...>:

> Hi Chris!
> 
> I understand your concerns regarding the status of this project. I found it about 6 months ago while I was creating something similar (from scratch..) and thought it would be worth a try to implement drivers for my synthesizers using JSynthlib instead,  and it actually was…
> 
> What worries me the most is that there doesn't seem to exist any test cases. Especially not for the drivers. Therefore it's extremely risky to do major changes to core. 
> 
> I would like to perform the improved folder structure change first, then create some test cases. It should be possible to automatically generate test cases by moving around controllers and listening to the MIDI output. 
> 
> Once that is done I think it would be appropriate to do the (very much needed) cleaning of core.
> 
> I have seen too many "complete rewrite" projects just going nowhere. Therefore I think this project is a good start. Even if it is really messy it has one advantage: it works (at least for the synthesizers I own).
> 
> BR
> /Pascal
> 
> 17 okt 2013 kl. 15:58 skrev "chr...@ch..." <chr...@ch...>:
> 
>> Hi Pascal,
>> 
>> Packe [pa...@ya...] wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Yes, I have had a look at the refactor branch. My concern about that branch
>>> was that it didn't seem active and that in some mailing list conversation
>>> there was very high aims for what was going to be developed in that branch.
>>> 
>> 
>> I got to a point with my refactoring where I would have liked some feedback and
>> an indication whether the work was likely to be merged back into trunk. The lack
>> of feedback and list activity in general lead me to the conclusion that
>> JSynthLib is an orphaned project and that I should focus my efforts elsewhere.
>> 
>> At the point I left it, the code in my branch compiles and loads the files
>> created in the currently released version. I was somewhat dependent on people
>> testing, since I didn't have any supported synths to test an existing driver.
>> 
>>> 
>>> Therefore I felt that it would take quite a long time to merge those changes
>>> (which seems very good btw) to trunk.
>>> 
>> 
>> Had there been any activity in the trunk, then I would have merged or ported
>> those changes. From what I can see, there still hasn't been any activity on the
>> trunk since I started my branch.
>> 
>>> 
>>> Regarding Ant vs Maven vs whatever I don't really have a firm opinion.
>>> 
>> 
>> It's not something I have particularly strong feelings about - I'd be much more
>> concerned in a project like JSynthLib if it mandated the use of a particular
>> IDE. I vaguely recall someone almost doing this by trying to use the GUI builder
>> in NetBeans many years ago. That was when the project seemed more active and I
>> first considered trying to contribute to it - the attempt to enforce NetBean's
>> GUI builder is what put me off.
>> 
>>> 
>>> The benefit of Maven is that it has a resource folder right inside src which
>>> is handy to save resources such as images in. As you mention it is also neat
>>> to handle dependencies.
>>> 
>> 
>> Maven seems to have adopted existing best practices in this regard.
>> 
>>> 
>>> What would you say is left before we can merge the refactor branch to trunk?
>>> 
>> 
>> I suspect that my branch is at least as stable as trunk, but with the beginnings
>> of a major API cleanup. It looks like there was a clear design and decent
>> encapsulation at some point, but that they have been broken over the years.
>> Cleaning this up further will be a lot of work, and I wonder if it may not be
>> better to start from scratch with the core, and just using the existing drivers
>> as a form of documentation for new ones.
>> 
>>> BR
>>> /Pascal
>>> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Chris
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> October Webinars: Code for Performance
> Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance.
> Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from 
> the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register >
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60135031&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Jsynthlib-devel mailing list
> Jsy...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jsynthlib-devel