Thank you for making it meaningless...
gmakmail at gmail.com
Tue Mar 7 08:44:42 PST 2006
Read update2; I am for - teamwork kind of person. You did not cause anything, only that I got a bit confused. Development should always happen publicly because
this way it is easy to avoid eye - of - the - beholder effects on behalf of the developers. IT is just that at times people who review what is posted keep
asking for more before even POC is complete... This leads to misunderstandings, as well as bad marathon - runner effects. Bottom line is I wish to contribute to
this, as I stated initially :)
Some notes on what I will work on this afternoon:
1. Reduce (if) statements to minimal, fuse it with in - line parsing, full DTD compliance
2. Implement stack - based approach to handling element names, entity dereferencing
3. Implement xi:include searching/including
4. Implement the searching algorithms (binary search, why not make it easy for it to parse HUGE xml files).
BTW, you should be using C++ vectors in there, it will make things easier once we start actually creating the classes and move away from procedure - oriented
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> George Makrydakis wrote:
>> No misunderstandings please... This is what I was working on:
>> The only bug to fix has to do with DTD (minor one but it crashes
>> Working together means that I must do marathon running?
>> Geez..., do not mix premature constructive criticism with the need
>> to not be
>> releasing buggy stuff..
>> The code below works if you take out DTD elements out of any xml
>> file that is VALID.
>> Handles the <,> and >,< pairs correctly no matter how weird the
>> syntax is...
>> IT IS BUGGY BUT IT IS UNINFORMED, and most of all *SMALL*
>> Thank you for making my trouble worth nothing, you could not wait
>> a couple of days more, could you...
> Whoa. Wait a sec. This was not my intention at all - and I certainly
> didn't mean to cause *any* sort of friction between us whatsoever. :(
> Please understand, previously we had a developer who, though he would
> use the repository, discussed almost nothing with anyone else concerning
> the code, and consequently no one else could easily follow what he was
> doing. I am simply anxious not to repeat that.
> Though I don't think you were intending to do the same thing - I'd be
> much more comfortable if everyone was able to see/view/comment on the
> code from the beginning - even at its very earliest stages.
> George, I am very sorry if my words offended you, they were not meant to
> in the least.
> As far as releasing buggy stuff - that isn't my intention either. This
> is all still POC code under development, and won't be recommended to be
> used until it is shown to provide solid results on all the books in
> question. I just want to make sure the development happens publicly.
More information about the alfs-discuss