[jsword-devel] Have Troy and Joe Had a Chance to Chat

[Joe Walker]

Hi,

Yes we have, and we discussed how similar the projects are. Most of our
discussions took place on a boat being puntted around Cambridge!
I've been working on some Together docs for Sword (partly as a way of
making sure I understand, and maybe they will be of some use to others.)
My next job is to finish this off and publish it. The upload could be
big. Does anyone know if it could be easily uploaded & unpacked to
Crosswire? It would make more sense to put it there than @ sf.net/projb

I think in general there are many bits where the design is very similar,
the main design differences being - SWModules is stateful, where
Book/Bible is not. ProjectB uses a XML format as a way of interchanging
data rather that sets of Filters. And search is abstracted a bit more in
ProjB than in Sword.

I think Troy and I are agreed that we can have a good compromise where
we can write a filter layer that implements an interface that is very
very close to the Sword API that calls the ProjectB API. This way we can
refactor at our leisure and have one API for people that know Sword, and
another API designed with Java and Java programmers in mind.

>From a real code point of view I think Sword has much better support for
general Books, however it is supported at a design level in ProjectB,
and this is one of the things I have been working on recently - so yes
Keith, it does need work, but I am working on it.

When Troy is back from Italy he is going to set me up on CVS at
crosswire and in the mean time I am making sure I understand it properly
- I will probably use the ProjectB CVS repo. to muck around in.

The number one task when all that is done is to really sort out the
Sword module support, so we can read dict/lex/etc.

Make sense?

Joe.

On Thu, 2002-04-25 at 04:03, Keith Ralston wrote:
> Do we know which direction we wish to go yet?  We've had little chatting
> from a group of very excited developers.  Perhaps everyone is digesting
> Project B?  It would be nice to hear what each is working on.
> 
> I am looking at the documentation and code for PB.  I like the
> arrangement and general design.  The design feels aimed specifically at
> Bibles.  Commentaries, Theologies and other book types would need to be
> added.  I did not see that as easy to do given the existing design.  But
> I probably missed something.
> 
> What does everyone else think?
> 
>