> I have no real objection to the use of generation. My only "objection"
> was based on the "cost benefit" analysis of the situation. Basically,
> as far as I can tell you can only generate simple record stubs, the time
> it took you to develop the method of doing this in addition to create
> the definitions probably outweighs the time it would take to have done
> it by hand in the first place. Now that its done, such is irrelevant.
The time I've spent on it has been fairly small. Especially considering I
had to learn a new technology first. Since the number of records used by
charting is large I'm quite confident I have a net saving in time.
As to only generating simple stubs. This was the intention. I wanted the
cost of generation for simple stuff to be small. Complex stuff will still
be done by hand. At the moment it handles various sized int fields, bit
fields, constants and strings. This is really all I intended.
> That being said it needs to stay possible to create non-xml-stub
> versions.
Agreed.
> As far as it being quiet. I've been trying to tie things up. I'm going
> on a week long trip next week and will be mostly incommunicada. I'll be
> in some foreign country north of the mason dixon line called Boston.
> ;-)
>
> (I had hoped to see California, but I guess it wasn't meant to be this
> time.)
>
> Marc and I both just started new jobs, so we're getting our feet back.
> And I've done quite a bit of work here and there on documentation and
> things.
Unfortunately I've had to take a week off because things are slow so I've
got a bit of time on my hands. Hope you have fun on your trip.
> Anyhow, nice work on the xml thing. Awesome that you've climed the
> learning curve so quickly for xslt. Cool to use it, must maintain
> ability to create complex records like SSTRecord too using just java.
Agreed, I never intended it to be a full replacement for everything, just
really want to save some time.
Regards,
Glen Stampoultzis
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(03) 9753-6850
0402 835 458
