Re: XMLFS for GSoC

2011-04-13 Thread Michael S. Walker
> I briefly considered this, but I think we should rather go for the > opposite: let the XSLT translator take files as input. If directory > input is desired, it can always be set on top of unxml. That is probably a better solution, if the xslt translator presents a file as output, giving it a dir

Re: XMLFS for GSoC

2011-04-07 Thread olafBuddenhagen
Hi, On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 09:09:35PM +0100, Michael Walker wrote: > > I don't think the XSLT translator should present a directory tree as > > output. Nothing in XSLT requires the output to be XML. > > Aha, I had a feeling I was misunderstanding something somewhere. In > that case, xslt would

Re: XMLFS for GSoC

2011-04-07 Thread olafBuddenhagen
Hi, On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 01:46:02PM +0100, Michael Walker wrote: > * Read support in unxmlfs > unxmlfs takes an xmlfs-compatible directory tree and turns it > into an XML file, thus reading will be done via libtrivfs, with no > write support (I see no need/use for that). I do. The GSo

Re: XMLFS for GSoC

2011-04-07 Thread Michael Walker
> Well, if you need the exact same code, this is a pretty good indication > that it probably shouldn't be in the XSLT translator at all... Working > on top of a directory tree would only make sense if it would actually > use the provided structure directly, rather than first serializing it. > > Or

Re: XMLFS for GSoC

2011-04-07 Thread olafBuddenhagen
Hi, On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 03:43:15PM +0100, Michael Walker wrote: > I did originally just plan to do xmlfs, but then I realised that most > of the nontrivial code in the xslt translator and in unxmlfs would be > the same - the directory-tree-to-XML parser, which shouldn't really be > too hard.

Re: XMLFS for GSoC

2011-04-07 Thread Michael Walker
> I did originally just plan to do xmlfs, but then I realised that most > of the nontrivial code in the xslt translator and in unxmlfs would be > the same - the directory-tree-to-XML parser, which shouldn't really be > too hard. The only other nontrivial part of the xslt code is the > libnetfs-base

Re: XMLFS for GSoC

2011-04-06 Thread Michael Walker
> So the idea is that one would launch an XSLT translator, with a XSLT > style sheet as input, on top of an xmlfs directory, and the result would > be a file representing the output of the XSLT processor? Yes, that's what I was thinking. Though, being able to run it on top of an XML file should be

Re: XMLFS for GSoC

2011-04-06 Thread Samuel Thibault
olafbuddenha...@gmx.net, le Tue 05 Apr 2011 22:24:57 +0200, a écrit : > So the idea is that one would launch an XSLT translator, with a XSLT > style sheet as input, on top of an xmlfs directory, No, I'd rather say on top of an xml file. Samuel

Re: XMLFS for GSoC

2011-04-05 Thread olafBuddenhagen
On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 02:10:33AM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Michael S. Walker, le Sun 03 Apr 2011 00:30:32 +0100, a écrit : > > What's the correct way to produce a patch? I'm using git for version > > control (if that's relevant). > > Then git diff. No, git format-patch is much better. -

Re: XMLFS for GSoC

2011-04-05 Thread olafBuddenhagen
Hi, On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 12:30:32AM +0100, Michael S. Walker wrote: > On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 19:41:28 +0200 wrote: > > > * Support for XSLT transformations > > > > Not sure how that would fit?... > > It was an idea proposed in the TODO file, though that might be better > as a separate transla

Re: XMLFS for GSoC

2011-04-02 Thread Samuel Thibault
Michael S. Walker, le Sun 03 Apr 2011 00:30:32 +0100, a écrit : > On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 19:41:28 +0200 > wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:57:44PM +0100, Michael Walker wrote: > > > > > * Fix all gcc warnings [done] > > > > Send the patch(es) :-) > > What's the correct way to produce a patch?

Re: XMLFS for GSoC

2011-04-02 Thread Michael S. Walker
On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 19:41:28 +0200 wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:57:44PM +0100, Michael Walker wrote: > > > * Fix all gcc warnings [done] > > Send the patch(es) :-) What's the correct way to produce a patch? I'm using git for version control (if that's relevant). > > * Suppo

Re: XMLFS for GSoC

2011-04-02 Thread olafBuddenhagen
Hi, On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:57:44PM +0100, Michael Walker wrote: > * Fix all gcc warnings [done] Send the patch(es) :-) > * Support for XSLT transformations Not sure how that would fit?... The rest makes sense as far as I can tell; so I hope to see a good application soon :-) -antrik-

Re: XMLFS for GSoC

2011-03-29 Thread Samuel Thibault
Michael Walker, le Tue 29 Mar 2011 22:57:44 +0100, a écrit : > Finally, even if this doesn't get picked as a GSoC task (after I send > off my application), I still intend to do this over the summer to > better learn Hurd programming, and so either way there will be an > improved xmlfs this year :)