On 4/6/07, Blair Zajac <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Apr 5, 2007, at 9:52 PM, Joe Swatosh wrote:
> > On 3/26/07, Daniel Rall <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Blair Zajac wrote:
> >> >
> >> > 3) Come up with a common Subversion objected oriented
> >> abstraction for
> >> > all bindings. I think we spoke about this at the summit.
> >> Comments were
> >> > made that the Ruby bindings were the best designed.
> >> >
> >> > Instead of having each binding have thier own OO feel, they all
> >> > implement the same feel.
> >> >
> >> > This isn't too codey, and may not make a good SOC project.
> >> #3 should definitely be listed. We talked about this at the last
> >> Subversion Summit in Mountain View.
> > It seems to me that each language has its own idioms that would make
> > this hard to do in a really compelling way. There might be some low
> > level testing (since it is basically C) that could be shared.
> I believe the the object model can be the same. For example, having
> the same sets of classes and methods on them, so moving from one
> language to another is easy.
Indeed the object models _can_ be the same. I'm thinking more in
terms of what users of the languages might expect. I'm not really a
Perl programmer, but it seems to me that there might be different
abstractions than even OO that might make more sense to a Perl
programmer. In Ruby, many "transaction-like" things get enclosed in a
I guess my point is that since they all wrap the same underlying code,
that there could clearly be a common model to interact with, but that
the different languages have different strengths and idioms, something
looking to be a "higher level" abstraction might need to cater to
those different strengths and idioms.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Sat Apr 7 22:50:48 2007