RE: [Ogdl-core] New branch is ready

[didge <di...@fo...>]

Rolf wrote:
> 
> didge wrote:
> > Folks,
> >
> > I've just committed a number of new files to the project on a new branch
> > called DIDGE_001.  
> > ...
> 
> Really great work!

Thanks!

>   > 1. Package names.
> > I've simplified the package names so as to place the most important
> classes
> > and interfaces at the top of the hierarchy.  I believe this is more
> natural
> > to Java programmers and is more similar to the organization of similar
> open
> > source projects.
> 
> You have used ogdl.* instead of org.ogdl.*. Is this more or less
> accepted now? Sun wanted the full domain name.

After 10 years of Java development, I haven't yet seen a practical benefit
to starting the package hierarchy off with a TLD.  Oracle doesn't do it and
even Sun does not follow the practice consistently.  I also wanted to make
the .NET and Java versions as consistent as possible and .NET namespaces do
not use TLDs as a practice.

> > 5. Not implemented
> > org.ogdl.reference.OgdlPullParser does not yet implement meta
> information or
> > references because I have a few questions about them.
> 
> I think that meta information (#?) can be safely scrapped from spec.

I think that there is some benefit to some sort of parser instruction that
is not included as part of the data for version identification, if nothing
else.  Let's pick it up in another thread.

> The level 2 productions are indeed unimplemented in the current
> code, and we have no experience with them. They are analog to
> symbolic links.
> 
> > 1. I hope that this spurs plenty of discussion.
> 
> I think this is a step forward. What we can discuss is a way to merge
> your code into the main branch (while respecting your branch).
> 
> --
> Rolf.

It would be great to get some more input from other Java users.  Also, I'll
have the C# version ready shortly and maybe we'll get some interest from
that camp, though it doesn't sound like there are many .NET users involved
with OGDL right now.

Regards,
  didge