[sword-devel] Semantic problem: real module names vs. Abbreviation=XYZ

[Peter von Kaehne]

On Tue, 2015-09-01 at 01:26 -0700, David Haslam wrote:
> Yesterday, I added a note in the wiki page:
> 
> http://www.crosswire.org/wiki/DevTools:conf_Files#cite_note-1
> 
> 1. We strongly advise to avoid using an Abbreviation that's identical 
> to the
> ModName or Abbreviation of any other module. It only leads to 
> confusion, and
> may have unexpected consequences for some front-ends.

> 
> Peter thought that this might confuse some module developers, but I'm 
> more
> concerned about the unexpected consequences of the semantic problem 
> at the
> software.

I continue to think this is a totally unwarranted piece of advice which
is not only wrong but also seriously misguided. It replaces finding a
solution for a annoying but surmountable problem with confusion and
mess for users and module makers alike + has the added "benefit" of
totally undermining the utility of "Abbreviation" in the first place. 

We have 1000 + modules between the different repos and no one - neither
user nor module maker - should ever be forced to wade through these to
make sure that an Abbreviation (which after all is for user
convenience!) and nothing else is not duplicated somewhere else in a
language or a in a ModuleName most users might not ever want to use. 

Karl has pointed at a problem in Xiphos  (and possibly beyond) which
will need attention, but no solution of it should ever result in the
above "advice" being implemented as a fix.

We should have a clear and unique _internal_ module ID which is not
replicated anywhere, based on some form of name space per publisher
(Xiphos, IBT, CrossWire, eBible, Net, whoever) and the ModuleName and
then, quite separate from that a free form, UTF8  Abbreviation, which
might or might not be delivered by the module maker, but should
certainly be open to users (re)defining for their own use.  

If a module is newly installed or its Abbreviation renamed by the user
with a clashing Abbreviation then this is a problem, but the frontend
should be able to take care of that. It should be relatively easy
addition to most frontends to run a consistency check at start or
whenever something changes and say "Ouch, you got two modules you
choose to call "Luther", can you please fix this?" with the user then
renaming one to e.g. Luther1912 and/or the other to Luther1984. 

URI's - the place where Karl found his problem - are in essence
internal pieces of data and should be based on the Module ID to be
consistent, clear and unique across the local system and preferentially
beyond (e.g. for sword URI's on the net or wherever). At least when
they leave the system they should not be based on Abbreviation.

A translation table for Abbreviations<->Module ID could be a flexible
and dynamically created and updated table, depending on what modules a
user has up and running. 

Greg's suggestion for the user to make a choice whether to have the URL
handler run with Abbreviation or ModuleName (did I understand you
right, Greg?) remains an option, but does not really solve the problem
of Abbreviation clashing with each other (rather than with ModuleName).

blessings

Peter
 


> 
> David
> 
> 
> 
> --
> View this message in context: http://sword
> -dev.350566.n4.nabble.com/Semantic-problem-real-module-names-vs
> -Abbreviation-XYZ-tp4655148p4655154.html
> Sent from the SWORD Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page