I think the main issue with std.xml is its speed. That in turn derives
from its design, which is based on delegates. Probably a module that
uses a similar design but templated delegates (a la std.algorithm) and
uses ranges to avoid memory allocation would be compelling.
Andrei
On 11/14/10 12:35 AM, SHOO wrote:
About a problem of std.xml.
I do not clearly understand what of this module is a problem. Is the
main factor lack of the maintainer? Or the design concept? Performance?
Bugs?
Please make problems clear.
Otherwise the action indicator that we should take next is not decided.
(I think that this is what I can talk to other modules, too.)
--
SHOO
(2010/11/14 14:52), Jonathan M Davis wrote:
We have several modules in Phobos which are supposedly going to be
deprecated in
favor of better implementations (std.stream, std.xml, std.json, etc).
As I
understand it, this is primarily because the code isn't being
maintained, is
poorly designed for D2 (possibly because it isn't range-centric or
just hasn't
been updated with D2-only features), and/or lacks a
maintainer/champion. In
addition to that, there's various types of functionality which should
probably
be in Phobos but haven't been done yet.
The Phobos developers only have so much time on their hands, and some
portion of
this kind of work is going to need to be done by people who are not
currently on
the Phobos team. That, and we seem to be adopting the idea that the ideal
situation is for each module to have a "champion" of sorts who is
behind the
module, working to fix bugs on it and make it better.
So, I was wondering if what we should do is figure out what some of
the modules
are that we want in Phobos - and in particular the ones currently in
Phobos
which need to be overhauled - and then post on the main D list looking
for
people willing to take them on. We don't want to a flood of code that
needs to be
reviewed for inclusion in Phobos, but if we want to get a lot of this
stuff done,
we need more people working on it - particularly people who are really
looking
to focus on it and champion it.
So, I'm suggesting that we identify the top priority module which
aren't likely
to be done by Phobos developers any time soon and see if we can get
others in
the D community to do them. In particular, it's a problem that we have
several
modules which we intend to replace. The longer that we wait, the more
code that
will be written using the old modules, and the more code which will
break when
they get replaced.
- Jonathan M Davis
_______________________________________________
phobos mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
_______________________________________________
phobos mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
