Re: Mono bindings a blessed dependency? [Was: Tomboy in 2.16]
- From: Emmanuele Bassi <ebassi gmail com>
- To: Jamie McCracken <jamiemcc blueyonder co uk>
- Cc: desktop-devel-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Mono bindings a blessed dependency? [Was: Tomboy in 2.16]
- Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 18:26:35 +0200
Hi,
On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 17:15 +0100, Jamie McCracken wrote:
> > In which sense it's a "fd.o project"? Considering that:
> >
> > * the spec upon which is based is in on the wiki, in the "even less
> > than a draft" section, and it can be edited by anyone with an
> > account[1];
> > * I didn't see any endorsement by anyone - except by the projects
> > for which Jamie did wrote a patch for;
> > * I don't see anyone except Jamie working on it, making Tracker
> > _and_ the spec as the next candidates to the "son of egg-recent"
> > competition[2];
>
> Deskbar developer Mikkel Kamstrup (http://kamstrup.livejournal.com/)
> wrote the deskbar handler and has committed himself to write a PYGTK GUI
> for tracker.
Glad to hear that.
> > [1] Dublin Core anyone? Timestamps not using ISO8601 but something that
> > is similar-yet-not-quite-enough?
>
> should be ISO8601.
No, it's not. It's something similar, but doesn't validate as such; and
ISO8601 has more than one format for dates.
An implementation of a ISO8601 parser is included in libsoup and inside
GLib 2.11; you should really look at that. Also, the usage of timestamp
is inconsistent at best: the File.* namespace uses timezones, while the
Audio.* and Image.* do not.
> We need namespaces/classes for metadata as raw DC is
> not appropriate and hierarchical rdf types are very inelegant (and
> unmanageable in tracker's DB).
You are making a common mistake - I did that too, so a word of advice:
you don't write the spec to adapt it to the implementation; it's really
the other way around. Otherwise, you'll have the perfect implementation,
but other will have to pass through hell. Remember that fixing a bad
implementation is simple - fixing a bad spec is really not.
You must design the spec *without* the implementation in mind. It's
harder: yes. It creates a *useful* spec: yes.
Ciao,
Emmanuele.
--
Emmanuele Bassi - <ebassi gmail com>
Log: http://log.emmanuelebassi.net
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]