[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (FC-Devel) FreeCase (fwd)
Sorry for late response... :(
>>>>> "DW" == Danny Werner writes:
DW> Hi again, Andrey, all, Andrey V Khavryutchenko wrote:
DW> [...] [change-management/repository]
AK> One of the best CM systems, I've used -- cvs -- goes ok without
DW> Is CVS a good starting point for a passive repository too?
Well, what do mean by "passive" repository? What's an active one?
TF> 1 Reporting. At least +HTML and +rtf.
AK> Definitely SGML. We've to select a DTD and produce user-level
AK> documentation and reports in it. Good candidates are DocBook (large)
AK> and TEI Lite (tool support is somewhat problematic)
DW> Andrey, I don't know DocBook, TEI or TEI Lite. Do you think it's unwise
DW> to start HTML-only? Better: Let's start by using the "documented
DW> interfaces" you mentioned and some practical extraction and reporting
DW> language ;-) to keep to reporting problems out of the FreeCASE core!
DW> (To be clear: a good starting set of reporting scripts covering most
DW> needs _will_ IMHO be in the distrbution).
Yes, I agree.
My bias towards SGML is because it may cary highly structured document
data, which is definitelly necessary for reporting facilities. This
storage is defined in architecture independent manner (the ISO std number
escapes from my mind) and is easily converted to any well-defined format.
Including, of course, html.
But that's not the point now.
DW> I'm not impressed by reporting facilities of the commercial CASE
DW> products I've seen. Furthermore: eventually one wants to present a
DW> model/sytem made with the tool in a personal or team style.
Sure. By using SGML I may just change the stylesheet and change the
document format completely. If I want change the data, I change the
document. Such a nice document data/style separation :)
DW> I'ld appreciate your opinion on this.
>> >JW> From an implementation perspective, we may be able to pick up >JW>
>> some of these features by integrating existing projects.
TF> At first, there should be defined different layers, as the core (where
TF> the repository resides) does not need to know the presentation layer,
TF> where either the user interface is defined or the printed doc is
AK> See the _Interface_ requirement.
DW> This looks like we can agree on that. Do we?
DW> By now I think everyone interested in the technicalities of distributed
DW> computing should have taken a look at
DW> http://diamant-atm.vsb.cs.uni-frankfurt.de/~mico/ or
DW> to assess wether MICO has the ORBs to start with. I feel good about it,
DW> but please anybody who _can_ judge/compare MICO's merits and do's and
DW> dont's for FreeCASE: Do so and report. If it depends on other
DW> decisions: please state those.
Well, I've not used CORBA yet, so I step aside.
SY, Andrey V Khavryutchenko http://www.kbi.kiev.ua/~akhavr
Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from