Re: Merging Serialization branch in next 3 days

[Richard Schwarting <richard schwarting ca>]

I agree.  You may merge what you need to now.  I've looked at the code enough that I don't think there are any serious issues (besides some documentation errors :D), and I've been using it in my own projects this past week (I have two for school that use GXml!) that I haven't seen problems.

Having it as a separate library makes sense since you'll have

a) complete autonomy over the direction of it, and won't be blocked by me being busy or overwhelmed

b) have your own release schedule

c) your serialization implementation is quite large :D, over half the size of the rest of the library. :D

In the future, I'll be more responsive to changes to core GXml that you might need.  If you want to make a change and I don't reply with a review within a week, then feel free to commit it to merge it as you see fit.

If you end up wanting to keep it as a submodule (just within GXml, but inside its own directory), I'm also fine with that.

Let me know what you think of the API questions I also sent.  I'd like the json-glib-style serialization (intends to be simple and automatic, not rich and featureful like yours :) to share the same core API methods, so I'll change them as necessary based on the questions from earlier.

On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Daniel Espinosa <esodan gmail com> wrote:

Thanks for your comments.

Lets work in that way. I'll work on serializable branch to create a library depending on GXml. ALL my work will be moved and merged later.

I would like to break master freeze for a long time now, please accept to merge now and monitor my commits to create Xom library.

Even I don't know if Xom will be a nested or independent name space.

For your suggestion to have two Serializable implementations under different namespace, means that may is better to fork my work in a different library depending on GXml 0.4.

By merging now most modifications to get parallel installation and Windows build will remain; just you'll see commits moving out Xom from GXml.

Do you agree?

El abr 2, 2014 8:20 a.m., "Richard Schwarting" <richard schwarting ca> escribió:

Would you actually be amenable to including serialization under a nested namespace, in its own directory, as a submodule?

That helps alleviate the issue of its size a bit.  GXml was originally just a wrapper around libxml2 that provided a DOM API.  With Serialization not being its main purpose, your Serialization code in your branch is about ~1/3 the entire code base.  If it's its own submodule, then I don't think it matters how big it gets.

I used the word unnecessary above, because just to serialize a GObject into XML on disk and back, a lot of the features are unnecessary, but I shouldn't use that word, as you obviously have use cases that are valid, that you're making use of.  You mentioned how your serialization API could be used to actually save application data in existing formats, I believe.  (Like AppData.)  Whenever I look at it, I've foolishly been trying to minimise the amount of "feature creep", to avoid including a bunch of code that ultimately gets rarely used.  If it's a submodule, I don't mind it having a life of its own.  (E.g. make and commit whatever changes to the submodule you want!)

When I said complicated, it's in part because the original goal in adding Serialization was to keep it Simple and Automatic.  You've recently added some wonderful, useful code for serializing different Gee structures.  My hope was rather instead of handling class-specific code to handle such things, to work towards a way to better automatically handle them.  (Some of them would require new functionality in either gir or vala to be able to access private fields that weren't properties, which is ugh and a long way off.)

So, if you wanted to use XML Object Model as the name of your submodule (or whatever you like), we could have directories like:

gxml/
gxml/xom/

And a namespace like
GXml.Xom

We could let the common serializable interface be defined at something like

gxml/Serializable.vala

gxml/jgs/JgsSerializable.vala   /* for json-glib-style serialization */

gxml/xom/XomSerializable.vala

If you'd like this, I'm fine with trusting you to also push changes to gxml/xom/ whenever you like.  If you need to make changes to gxml/* stuff outside of gxml/xom/, I'd also be fine with a short review window (1 week?) after which if I don't even respond, you can just push things anyway.

You've written a lot more code than I have over the past 8 months especially.  Largely I've been unavailable due to school and work and budo, but it's stupid of me to prevent you from advancing GXml somewhere useful.  You're also a good programmer, so you should be free to commit changes at this point, I think.  I mostly want to keep the core of GXml small, keeping most implementation details in libxml2 for now.

Does having Xom as a submodule completely under your control sound good?  If so, if you can make that change and merge it, it'll make reviewing individual pieces a lot easier.

On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Richard Schwarting <richard schwarting ca> wrote:

I'm still working on the last review you requested.  Basically I want all the serialization merged, but not exactly as is.  It's just gotten really big and hard to get done in a single sitting.

On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 6:49 PM, Daniel Espinosa <esodan gmail com> wrote:

Thanks for your response.

El abr 1, 2014 2:35 p.m., "Richard Schwarting" <richard schwarting ca> escribió:

>
> No.
>
> It is large, complicated, and makes unnecessary changes.

I think we need more than just say that.

> It also consumes all my free time that I have to work on GXml trying to restart reviews on

I haven't seen you working on GXml in months.

> it since earlier ones never had their concerns addressed.b
>
>

Again please!!! Send to this list your concerns, even the ones at early commits I can explain you what and why each.

I've been waiting for a while with no comment.

All my work always have been public at early stages.

I think we can't hold my work indefinitely.

> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Daniel Espinosa <esodan gmail com> wrote:
>>
>> I've found serialization branch ready to merge.
>>
>> * Fixed and stabilized Serialization framework
>> * Fixed and running win32/win64 compilation
>>
>> Task TODO:
>>
>> * Fix Unit Test in order to get no error/warning messages
>> * Clean up Serialization class in order to support default and user defined
>>   serialization method for GObjects
>>
>>
>> --
>> Trabajar, la mejor arma para tu superación
>> "de grano en grano, se hace la arena" (R) (en trámite, pero para los cuates: LIBRE)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> gxml-list mailing list
>> gxml-list gnome org
>> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gxml-list
>>
>