[Home]  [List]  [News]  [Docs]  [FAQ]  [Downloads]  [Resources]  [About]
Search :
/Home /List

list4xt : Mailing list for the XT users community.

[list4xt] Re: saxon:evaluate

Subject: [list4xt] Re: saxon:evaluate
From: Eric van der Vlist (vdv@dyomedea.com)
Date: 27/08/2000 - 10:42

Paul,

Paul Tchistopolskii wrote:
>
> > Do you have a lightweight implementation in mind ?
>
> Even I do - I think this is not a biggest problem now.
>
> Yes, XT is Open Source. But xt:evaluate is not that trivial
> to implement and implementing it without James' blessing
> is to fork 2 branches of XT - I don't want to do that. It is not worth
> the benefits.
>
> Let me explain by example. Very long time ago ( 7-10 years? )
> I was used to write a free open-source C++ browser. Because
> at that point there was not a big number of such tools available
> on the market, I got a big number of users. Of course, they were
> submitting the requests for new functionality. When I was
> receiving the request, not all of the requests were acceptable
> from my point of view. When I received the request
> which I thought shoud not be implemented, I usually wrote into the
> mailing list that "I'l not do that because of this and that, but I think
> you should solve your particular problem in this and that way ".
> Sometimes that was enough, and user said : "yes, I can live with that".
> But sometimes, somebody was explaining to me why the way I'm
> proposing is not a solution from his point of view and ( rarely ) I got
> convinced that there is some rationale behind this request.
> When I had some time to implement that request myself I
> just implemented that request - very simple. If the request was
> not easy to implement and I had no time for it ( but I agree that
> request is reasonable ) I wrote some brief roadmap how could
> it be implemented by other person and if the person asking for
> the feature had a strong desire to get the functionality - he
> implemented the functionality and then submitted the patch
> to me - after reviewing the patch I could make some changes
> to the patch - and then I was including this patch into next release.
>
> 1. In any case there was no branching.
>
> 2. At least there was clear understanding on the status of some
> request:
>
> "reasonable"
> "not reasonable because of this and that"
>
> If xt:evaluate is not reasonable from James' point of view
> ( with at least one argument why it is not reasonable ) -
> to me there is no point to implement it.
>
> There is no point , for example, because it should be
> not xt:evaluate but something-else:evaluate
> ( for legal reasons ).
>
> In this case - why should it be something-else:evaluate?
> It could be just saxon:evaluate.

This is really up to you !

If I was facing a blocking issue with XT and had a reasonable solution
to propose, I would personally consider branching, especially since
James has said he'll let XT fade away.

The problem of the name doesn't seem so important. Depending on James
feelings, it could still be XT, become something like openXT or anything
else.

On the other hand, I would also compare this branching to switching to
another processor and if you feel that Saxon can better meet your needs,
I'll understand your "migration"...

Eric
 
> Rgds.Paul. 

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist       Dyomedea                    http://electroniccigarettenation.com
http://merchantaccount.cc -           http://merchantaccountsreview.com              http://hispanic-chamber.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
Mailing list for the XT users community.     (http://420mac.com)
(mailto:list4xt-request@4xt.org?Subject=unsubscribe to unsubscribe)

Archive générée par hypermail 2b28 le 06/11/2001 - 11:46 CET

webmaster@4xt.org
A site designed by Dyomedea