Hey, This was a really helpful email for me. I hope my reply is short and understandable.
On 22/03/2008, Boris Kolpackov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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? Ah, good question - at first I assumed moving the whole swig/ directory, but after reading your email, I can see a reason for leaving the language independent parts and only moving the language dependent parts out. > 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 Yes, correct. interfaces/ and util/ are independent and perl/ is Perl-dependent. I was also working on a ruby/ directory (uncommitted) as a test that I had successfully removed all Perl dependancies, but it is still not working - because my knowledge of Ruby is not good enough yet. > 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. Seems possible. I favor this idea. That way, the swig/util/ directory would only get configured in the scripting language distributions. From within the Xerces-Perl distribution, I would run 'configure --with-swig' and then the Makefiles for swig/ and swig/util/ would be generated. > 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. Two points: one is how the code is managed in subversion, the other how I make a distribution tarball. In this case I would create two different subversion modules, one is Xerces-P, which only has the Perl bindings. The other would be Xerces-Scripting which only contains the language independent pieces. But this piece could be left as part of the Xerces-C subversion tree just as easily. To make a distribution tarball of Xerces-P, I would include both the Xerces-C source, and the Xerces-Scripting source in the tarball - probably using subversion's svn:external property or something. > 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? I would prefer to have language-specific distributions, Xerces-C, Xerces-Perl, Xerces-Python, Xerces-Ruby, etc. As opposed to a single Xerces-Scripting. Sharing the website might be helpful, but that is less clear to me. > 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. Ah, good point. Then it seems clear to me that the Perl code belongs back in it's own SVN tree and *not* part of the Xerces-C SVN tree. I'll just wait for confirmation from the committers on the project and then move it back to it's original svn tree. Thanks for the help, jas. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
