Hi,
On Sep 25, 2009, at 3:17, Ivan Mikhailov <imikhai...@openlinksw.com>
wrote:
* What's the criteria to use DB.DBA.procedureName or
procedureName?
Does the latter resolve to the former qualified name or does it
depend
on the user? I see a lot of code written in the DB.DBA.*
catalog, then
I see lots of procedures with no qualification and I also see some
places where they are qualified.
Unqualified procedure names are bad thing in general, because they've
resolved at run time. So better use qualified names.
Ok. Will use qualified names then.
I think that a cookbook would be a nice companion to the docs. Some
snippets with comments.
Currently there is the formal specs, an then large blocks of code
(including the OS codebase ).
I miss the in between stuff.
ODS dev guide is closest.
Thanks,
A
* Most procedures have an extensive list of parameters that need
to be
documented ( in my code at least ). Since there is no current doc
parser, generator, etc, what if we use a modified inline TTL
dialect
to declare metadata for procedures? Comments, links to
documentation,
author metadata, etc.
Since the source text is stored on the database itself, then it
can be
easy to extract this using a sponger and saving it onto a graph,
etc.
Before that, we probably need a good XSLT+SPARQL to get a useful
report
from collected RDF data. This XSLT+SPARQL is the very next thing to
implement, only maintainance of existing code has higher priority.
After that, extractor might be a good example of XSLT+SPARQL. But I'm
sure that comments should have an absolutely minimal markup,
javadoc/doxygen style, and the markup should be optional, to not repel
people from writing comments at all.
One more thing.
Since procedures live as isolated enities in the database, we
have an
advantage over traditional IDEs. Depending on the granularity of
the
parse tree and the metadata ( these comments ), you can achieve
pretty
incredible usability feats.
You start the coding experience with a faceted browser over your
procedures. You can type and search a la spotlight, or filter by
author, or look for tags, etc.
And then we fall into full integration with SVN if you want to
roundtrip... but, wait! Virtuoso is WebDAV server! LOL.
I don like the idea of writing new procedures via WebDAV but I
understand that this is my personal preference. OTOH I agree that
reading procedures via WebDAV can be convenient for debugging in
complicated cases. But low priority for me, anyway.
Re minor things like +=, ||= etc. --- I want that too but I
continuously
get better things to do. In English we have "f-word", in Virtuoso/PL
we
have "f-operator" --- a "for" with ugly expressions in parentheses.
Best Regards,
Ivan Mikhailov
OpenLink Software
http://virtuoso.openlinksw.com
