Re: Re: wolframs packages

Hi Lorenzo Alberton, you wrote: >> On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 at 14:43:26, Michael Wallner wrote: >> My implementation is object based and has yet about 40 kB and will >> have, let's say, 60 to 70 kB when it's mostly finished. Because of >> using objects it was fairly simple to implement kind of an XPath >> API with ancestor(), ancestorOrSelf(), descendant(), >> descendantOrSelf(), followingSibling(), following(), >> precedingSibling() and so on (which are very usefull when working >> with a tree - at least in my POV). It's a pity that I didn't sync >> the latest sources with CVS and I'll return to this topic soon. > > > please keep me informed on this. I once hacked pear::Tree (an old > patch can be seen in the bug list), and managed to add some feats > without breaking the api, just moving some things around. I think a > deep refactoring can lead to a simpler code structure without > changing the API too much. Or, better yet, we could write a new > version with a more streamlined design, but IMHO we should really try > to reproduce and expand *all* the current features (i.e. > db/xml/xpath, memory trees, nestedset+classic tree models, better > support for different containers). If we want quality in pear, we > should at least *try* to write the ultimate-tree-class(TM), as > Wolfram's class was/is meant to be. I'm still a bit confused on how > DB_NestedSet got into pear rep. To me, it looked like it could be > easily integrated in pear::Tree with little effort, but the > discussion was carried out in a confuse way, and perhaps not all the > people involved realized that a similar feat already existed. (Note > to db_nestedset devs: don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying your > class is not good, I use it myself and appreciate many things, but I > still think it could be integrated instead of writing Yet Another > Pear Package). > > The good thing is pear::Tree is still beta, so API breakage is still > allowed. > > Michael, if you plan to work on this package, I'd be glad to help > (not as lead, though, the timeframe I can allocate for this project > is *very* thin). Phew. :) I'd really appreciate your help, Lorenzo - but I have to warn you, because I can really become a pain in the ass when CS is concerned :) Just let me sync my CVS tonight... I tended to use DB_NestedSet for the DB implementation, but I have not checked yet if it provides the proper API for implementing the XPath accessors, which should be provided by *each* Tree implementation, although preceding() is a really tricky one, because of the order the nodes should be returned... :) Lorenzo, listing the features you liked so much about Tree would help pretty much already for now. What I really don't like are these "container implementaions" which tend to duplicate the API and make everything more difficult than easier... --- PS: Hey PEAR-QA (listed in no particular order): Klaus Guenther, Lukas Smith, Stefan Neufeind, Arnaud Limbourg, Helgi Þormar, Stephan Schmidt, Tobias Schlitt, Antônio Carlos, Venâncio Júnior, David Costa, Aidan Lister, Davey Shafik, Peter Prochaska, Christian Wenz, Cipriano Groenendal Have a look right here and fire up your patch program: http://cambiano.onlinein.it/pearzone/Tree/ Regards, -- Michael - < mike(@)php.net >

Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] OpenPGP digital signature signature.asc