Re: Package Proposal: Vcard_Parse

On Tuesday, Mar 18, 2003, at 16:34 US/Central, Bertrand Mansion wrote:

2. Create a writer in complement to the parser.

Am working on that now, in conjunction with a vCard "contacts" sub-application for my Phorecast project. It'll probably be a separate class, as there are good vCard-writers out there now, and choice is good.

If you are currently working on it now, I don't see the need to have a parser and a writer as 2 different classes.

Although I'm working on it, it's going to take a bit more time (a month?) to get it really the way I want it. Would like to make the parser available sooner rather than later (so as to get something useful out there). In addition, the vCard builder (to collate elements into a vCard) and a writer (to add/chg/del cards from a text file) are different enough in purpose that I think they ought to be different classes; the number of methods will quickly increase into incomprehensibility. But I may be wrong, and I'll know for sure in a month or so (after I've done it ;-).

Make sure it writes vCard in 2 and 3.0 formats though... ;)

Of course. :-)

X500 doesn't mean anything for me, it's too cryptic.

Fair enough.

I guess you will have to choose and propose a name like those: - Contact_vCard - Address_vCard - File_vCard The logic behind the name is that we have a Genealogy_Gedcom and a Spreadsheet_Excel_Writer. You see that the prefix actually defines the domain it is mostly used in. Excel is a spreadsheet app while Gedcom is a common format for genealogy files. vCard is a common format for dealing with contacts or addresses... IMO, File is too general.

Agreed, although others seem to think it's OK. Contact_Vcard_* it is, then, unless I hear otherwise. Given the above, and the quality of the code as it stands, do you (Bertrand) feel comfortable assigning your vote? Or does it still need tweaking? Thanks for all your good input. -- pmj