Ivan Kurmanov writes
I have not started any significant development of new features yet.
Good news for me.
There were some minor changes and bug fixes, and I've done them on the live RAS system before or soon after the migration.
Last week I've started working on integrating these changes back into the ACIS development. And most of that is done, just a few minor items left. I will soon be ready to share those patches with you, if you want. But they are based on a 2007 version of ACIS, and some of them you already have in your version.
I want them. But I am not sure if I will be able to meaningful intergate them into the current version. I am very cut for time right now, but I can try to free a day for this. This will have to be this or next week.
The obstacles to using the latest ACIS version that are unresolved, that we need to clarify are:
- does it support Storable strings in the objects table, and the resources table (etc.) and in the RI db?
Yes. The change is that it uses one single serialization module for all. That module tries Storable as well.
- are the xslt templates compatible with the RAS phrases?
The AC templates are namespace aware. That implies that the phrases have to be put into the http://acis.openlib.org/ namespace. That's a one-minute job.
- does it have any other changes that might turn out incompatible with the current RAS setup?
When I did the conversion of the RAS presenter to the AC presenter, I did not convert the citaitions screens.
Another thought I'm having is: do we really need the installation script and procedure in ACIS? My thinking now is that it is mostly superflous.
Yes.
We could work on ACIS code in the same files and directories as it is installed now, without the reshuffling that the install.sh does. Most of the work that bin/setup does can also be removed (with help of modules like FindBin, etc.).
I still run setup, for the RI writing the configuraiton, I think this can't be done without the current setup, a ri restart does not do that (maybe it ought?, oh, no that o/s depenedent).
It would make developing easier. Publishing changes would be done via darcs repo directly, not via packaged versions.
But packaging colud still be done when we want to give people a copy of the software? Cheers, Thomas Krichel http://openlib.org/home/krichel http://authorprofile.org/pkr1 skype: thomaskrichel