[phobos] Community shout-out?

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

I think the main issue with std.xml is its speed. That in turn derives 
from its design, which is based on delegates. Probably a module that 
uses a similar design but templated delegates (a la std.algorithm) and 
uses ranges to avoid memory allocation would be compelling.

Andrei

On 11/14/10 12:35 AM, SHOO wrote:
> About a problem of std.xml.
>
> I do not clearly understand what of this module is a problem. Is the
> main factor lack of the maintainer? Or the design concept? Performance?
> Bugs?
>
> Please make problems clear.
>
> Otherwise the action indicator that we should take next is not decided.
> (I think that this is what I can talk to other modules, too.)
>
> --
> SHOO
>
> (2010/11/14 14:52), Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> We have several modules in Phobos which are supposedly going to be
>> deprecated in
>> favor of better implementations (std.stream, std.xml, std.json, etc).
>> As I
>> understand it, this is primarily because the code isn't being
>> maintained, is
>> poorly designed for D2 (possibly because it isn't range-centric or
>> just hasn't
>> been updated with D2-only features), and/or lacks a
>> maintainer/champion. In
>> addition to that, there's various types of functionality which should
>> probably
>> be in Phobos but haven't been done yet.
>>
>> The Phobos developers only have so much time on their hands, and some
>> portion of
>> this kind of work is going to need to be done by people who are not
>> currently on
>> the Phobos team. That, and we seem to be adopting the idea that the ideal
>> situation is for each module to have a "champion" of sorts who is
>> behind the
>> module, working to fix bugs on it and make it better.
>>
>> So, I was wondering if what we should do is figure out what some of
>> the modules
>> are that we want in Phobos - and in particular the ones currently in
>> Phobos
>> which need to be overhauled - and then post on the main D list looking
>> for
>> people willing to take them on. We don't want to a flood of code that
>> needs to be
>> reviewed for inclusion in Phobos, but if we want to get a lot of this
>> stuff done,
>> we need more people working on it - particularly people who are really
>> looking
>> to focus on it and champion it.
>>
>> So, I'm suggesting that we identify the top priority module which
>> aren't likely
>> to be done by Phobos developers any time soon and see if we can get
>> others in
>> the D community to do them. In particular, it's a problem that we have
>> several
>> modules which we intend to replace. The longer that we wait, the more
>> code that
>> will be written using the old modules, and the more code which will
>> break when
>> they get replaced.
>>
>> - Jonathan M Davis
> _______________________________________________
> phobos mailing list
> phobos at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos