forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <>
Subject Re: Project definition. (Re: [RT] Status.xml, changes.xml, todos.xmlm, news and other descriptors])
Date Tue, 16 Sep 2003 12:33:15 GMT

Just a couple of further explanations:

Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:

> Jeff Turner wrote:
> ...
>> What happened to ViProM?  Wasn't that meant to be a virtual project
>> model, built from Gump/Maven/Whatever?  Or is that just my imagination?
> It's in the works, yes.

Actually I had never thought of using it for Forrest, so I never 
inserted it in the Forrest plans. Might as well do so though, it may be 
a nice idea. Let's just not depend on it.

> Hence I would propose that we adopt Gump's format with extra namespaced 
> elements for things we need, and also support the Maven format.
> This is the same concept of what I proposed before of also supporting 
> the xml Maven format and navigation.xml.
> One thing is supporting, another is adopting as "standard".

What I mean here as "standard" is not the "endorsed" format, but a more 
general format to which all descriptors can be converted. Once we are 
able to render that descriptor format, we just need to convert others to 
that. The Gump and Maven formats have both differences, but the Gump 
format is more generic, and can be augmented with extra namespaced tags 
without breaking, so I regard it as the only possible one for a common 
format. We could define ours, dunno if it's that necessary though (could 

Anyway, again I'm seeing that we go in a lot of talking and once we are 
finished I feel that my itches don't itch anymore.

So I propose that I implement my proposal taking into account initial 
reactions, and then we can all judge from that how to make it better.


Nicola Ken Barozzi         
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)

View raw message