Re: RFC: Tentative Ideas for Improvements [Long]

[Arved Sandstrom <Ar...@chebucto.ns.ca>]

At 02:13 PM 3/31/01 +1000, Peter B. West wrote:
>I would like to make a few general observations on this discussion,
>which are still unencumbered by any knowledge of the code, although I am
>slowly, in spite of many interruptions, becoming more familiar with the
>spec.  I am still struggling to get a handle on all of this.

Hi Peter

You may or may not follow the XML Apache general mailing list. If not, you 
won't be aware that a charter proposal is being debated, and it will almost 
certainly mandate the following from each project (among other things):

1) set of requirements;
2) design document(s)

Now, we have both of those. And both, particularly the design docs, are 
obsolete.

I've noticed your spec study over the past months, and I consider that a 
valuable resource to this project. I am sure others do also. You might call 
it struggling, but considering the rather arcane portions of the spec that 
you're looking at, I'd say that you're developing some useful knowledge that 
I'd hate to lose. Point being, we will almost certainly be doing up new 
formal designs over the next 1-2 months, and your input and assistance is 
encouraged. Contributors don't have to stick to code, after all.

If you have some architectural/high-level design ideas, and would like to 
help us in sketching out high-level design, please feel free. Pseudocode, 
any type of notation (it doesn't have to be just UML), and insightful 
commentary such as you've provided so far - all welcome.

I'm not normally this effusive, but I'm trying to flatter you to the point 
where you write the design doc and we can then rubberstamp it... :-) Just 
kidding. Anyhow, all assistance welcome.

Regards,
Arved Sandstrom

P.S. All that aside, I did read your last commentary in detail, and although 
I don't have the time to make any major observations at the moment, I agree 
with your general comments.

Note that every area does have a trait that ought to be used to associate it 
to the FO that generated it. "generated-by", I think it's called, off the 
top of my pointy head.

In reference to my "transactions" concept and "committal"; Yes, actual 
committal might never happen, per se. It could well be more of a concept 
than a concrete act, as Karen also suggested. In terms of keeping track of 
start points, absolutely - we do that to a point now, with "marker" in 
FONode, and that's what the current getMarkerSnapshot() and rollback() 
methods in FONode are all about, also. I agree that in general we would be 
keeping track of more data of this kind.

Fairly Senior Software Type
e-plicity (http://www.e-plicity.com)
Wireless * B2B * J2EE * XML --- Halifax, Nova Scotia


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org