Hi Jason, Jason Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But it seems that it really is a question of where does the xerces-p > codebase belong? I feel the deeper we dig, the harder it gets... Do you mean by Xerces-P the whole swig/ directory or just the Perl part of it? My understanding (please correct me if I am wrong) is that there are two parts in the swig/ subdirectory. The language-independent part (let's call it swig) that can be used to create binding for other scripting languages (e.g., Python, Ruby, etc.) as well as the language binding for Perl itself (after looking at the source code, I release it might not be as clear cut as I've described). So the question is whether the whole swig sub-directory is moving or just the Perl part of it? Both alternatives seem to make sense: 1. If we move just the Perl part, then we can probably leave the swig proper in Xerces-C++ which can be used by Xerces-P as well as other language binding if they are created in the future. 2. If we move the whole thing, then the Xerces-P name is probably not appropriate since, in the future, this distribution may contain bindings for other languages. Perhaps a name like Xerces-Scripting would be more appropriate. Yet another alternative would be to have Xerces-C++, Xerces-Swig and Xerces-P. Another point that I would like to make is that I don't see a reason why we can't have a separate distribution (e.g., Xerces-Swig or Xerces-Scripting) under the Xerces-C++ project. Before the website would be a significant obstacle to this arrangement but now the website is detached from the Xerces-C++ distribution and can support other "sub-projects". Any thoughts? > So I can see only one reason to keep Xerces-P in the main codebase, > and that is the make test-suite target. It was my hope that the test > suite would prove useful to the Xerces-C developers. While this idea (having a test-suite written in a scripting language) seems clever, the reality appeared to be quite a bit messier. Plus if we will have a working test suite in another distribution, there is no reason why we can't run it periodically and/or before the release. So I don't think this should be a deciding matter. Boris -- Boris Kolpackov, Code Synthesis Tools Open source XML data binding for C++: http://codesynthesis.com/products/xsd Mobile/embedded validating XML parsing: http://codesynthesis.com/products/xsde --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
