xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Duncan Davidson <james.david...@eng.sun.com>
Subject Re: [spinnaker] Announce
Date Tue, 11 Jul 2000 03:54:01 GMT
on 7/10/00 8:13 PM, Scott Boag/CAM/Lotus at Scott_Boag@lotus.com wrote:

> No.  It's not Sun vs. IBM, it's not directed at you personally nor at Sun
> as an entity, I don't hate you, and please don't lump *me* in with a crowd.

Ok. As long as we both are talking as individuals.

> I dislike
> discussions that go something like "Your project is too big and complex, so
> I want to start over."

But that's the way that I feel. I feel it's time to take a fresh look. Esp.
since there are other parsers in the world that manage to stay under 50K and
Xerces is over a meg.

I've been struggling for a while to come to terms with the current code
base. Especially since I myself don't have 40 hours a week for it. Other
people I know that do have 40 hours a week have big concerns about it. I can
come to terms with it if we can refactor it.

I want something that fills the goals that I outlined. Whether or not it
ends up using a bunch of stuff from the current Xerces, well -- as long as
the end product makes those goals, I'm happy. This kind of thing isn't going
to start out with a "OpMap vs. expression classes" discussion IMHO. But
we'll get there really fast.

I find it interesting that I started a discussion about overall APIs -- and
that's what Andy and Arnoud have been talking about as well. Now it's going
to be talked about in the open and everyone will benefit.

> I don't expect you to.  Please forgive me if you feel attacked.  It's the
> actions, not the affiliation of the players that bother's me.

Oh, I feel increadibly attacked today. Picture this -- had I proposed
something like this without being affiliated with Sun. What would have
happend here. We might have gotten to where we are this evening without the
intervening 3 days of shouting wars.

> (However... any prodding on your part
> would be appreciated... :-)  )

I will do what I can. More importantly, Jim Driscoll is going to do what he
can from management perspective to bring the endpoints together.

> So this "[spinnaker] Announce" thread is probably wasting cycles, and I
> hope we can call peace (I probably shouldn't be continuing the discussion
> with this note). 

I don't think it's wasting cycles. I think that some people still have to
come to terms that I said that I didn't like the current source base and
want to try a refactor. But posts like Arnoud's and Jeffrey's recent ones
talking about design give me hope that we are about to get to what matters.
Figuring out what an NG parser can look like,

> Why don't we forget "spinnaker" or whatever, and do the
> "clean room" discussion (as my friend Stefano puts it) about what you and
> other's would like to see in a parser that contains *constructive* design
> suggestions. 

In other places and times and "experiments", people got really pissy when we
talked about a 2.0. That's the whole reason for calling it {spinnaker} -- we
learned a very hard lesson a while back. Honestly, I don't really think the
outcome would have been one whit different if I started talking about Xerces


View raw message