[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2003/10/22]
Steve Purkis <spurkis@xxxxx.xxx> writes: > On Wednesday, October 22, 2003, at 04:04 pm, Mark Fowler wrote: > >> Okay, so the question is, where are we heading now? > > Good question. I did post a short-term plan last week which I'll get > started on in my copious amounts of spare time, but AFAIK there are no > plans further than that. Not for lack of ideas, mind you... I've > submitted quite a few patches in the past, and I know Piers has a > whole stack of them tucked away somewhere. But as far as I'm > concerned Piers is still the lead developer on this project - I've got > the go-ahead to do maintenance, but aside from that I think we need > some feedback from Piers before we can decide which way to go. The current problem with Pixie, as I see it, is that the locking stuff isn't working very well at all, and without locking Pixie is very limited. I can't remember if we've fixed the object graph stuff to use a separate table yet (and if we haven't, we should do...). Other plans include getting rid of a few more of the case statements that work on the reftype of the object, and switch to using polymorphic dispatch with Heritable::Types instead. There's also a case to be made for unbundling Pixie::Info as it's a handy tool for other things as well I think. >> I can't really do much on Pixie development, it being a little over >> my head atm, but what I'd really like to do is start adding >> comments to the Pixie source code, and maybe working on the >> documentation. >> >> Does this sound like a good idea? What's the best way for me to go >> about this. Obviously, I'd really like someone to be checking my >> working to make sure my comments aren't completely wrong. > > I think adding some Pod is a good idea, More Pod is always a good idea, documenting how to use the bloody thing. > but I'd go easy on the comments - I know for a fact James prefers > self-documenting code, and I assume Piers does too as his code is > quite readable. Why thank you. Generally my gut feeling is that every time I think "Maybe I should add a comment here?" I'd be better off working out what it is about the code that is hard to understand and rewriting it so it's clear. Admittedly, there are a couple of places where Perl makes that very hard to do (I'm thinking particularly of the code that does the Data::Dumper -> exec tricks, which uses dynamic scoping in slightly weird ways). > Maybe some design docs would be a better idea? I'm more than happy > to go over things with you, time permitting. But bear in mind I'm > still learning too. I've been meaning to write something along those lines as a presentation at some point, but I've not done it yet. Tuit shortage can be a terrible thing.There's stuff above here
Generated at 13:56 on 01 Jul 2004 by mariachi 0.52