Re: agx: Moving forward

On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 00:40:35 -0000, Daniel Nouri  
<[email protected]> wrote:

> I dislike working with ArchGenXML.  Partially because of the code it
> generates (which hardly obeys PEP 8), and the poor maintainability of
> the program itself that originates from its monolithic model.  Another
> reason is that I don't like working with Java applications for creating
> my model, but I can live with that.

Can you be a bit more specific what's ugly about the code it generates? I  
believe that in the later versions, the code is fairly good.

I agree that there are no decent UML editors. Hopes are pinned on umbrello  
and gaphor, I believe. :)

> There's also a lot of good ideas in agx.  And lots of potential.
> Because the idea is appealing to not only the Plone community but the
> whole of the Zope community.  And if we do it right, agx will grow
> beyond just Plone and Zope.

+1

> On the Snowsprint I also realized that agx really is a terrible name.
> Not just because of reasons mentioned before on this list but also
> because it conflicts with "Ajax" when it's spoken out.  Or was that just
> the way it was mispronounced? :-)  Anyway, let's move to 'genesis',
> which I remember most people agreed to.

Yes. I was quite disappointed the last time this came up. ArchGenXML is an  
awful name, and AGX is an even more awful name. Having it be called  
'codename genesis' is just chickening out of making a decision. I think a  
few people muttered something about religion, but in all honesty, it's a  
generic word, and it's a good name, certainly unique in the zope/python  
space as far as I know.

I'd drop any and all reference to Arch or XML in the title if at all  
possible. Stupid names have been known to hold back good ideas before. :)

> I have some thoughts about concrete parts of current agx I want to
> repair, some of which I already mentioned.  Since noone is using agx
> yet, I don't think anyone will be hurt by my changes on trunk.  I will
> try to document my decisions, so that people can share their opinion.

agx? You mean "AGX Codename Gensis" ARGH!

> It would also be nice to get support from you people, either by
> contribution (that is, in the Right Way), or by sponsorship.  I
> personally don't have the "immediate" need for agx, I only think that
> it's an interesting project that deserves more attention, and I'd like
> to fix that. :-)

I agree. ArchGenXML (which I'd have abbreviated to AGX normally, but you  
know, it's now doubly confusing... ARGH again) is usually the first thing  
I show people about Plone. It's *the* thing that gets them to think Plone  
isn't a technological black box, but something they can actually get value  
out of without reading a book or two. It's really important. REALLY  
important.

If we can bring that kind of benefit to a Zope 3 schemas-based world, that  
will benefit not only Plone, but Zope 3 and other systems.

> There's a good chance that we get many people to contribute.  For that
> ball to get rolling though, agx needs to get in better shape, so that we
> can show it around.

Agreed.

Two points I'd like to add:

  - Change the name. No, seriously - change it. :-)

  - There are several XMI parsers listed on sourceforge, I believe even one  
or two python ones. We should be using these if possible, not roll our  
own. Do we really want to maintain something ourselves? Is this fun code  
to write? Do we need the flexibility of our own *parser*? I'm guessing no  
on all three counts.

Martin

-- 
(muted)



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642