[Mulgara-dev] New "commit" developer

[Life is hard, and then you die]

On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 04:41:18PM +1000, Andrae Muys wrote:
> 
> On 02/03/2007, at 8:40 PM, Life is hard, and then you die wrote:
> >Finally, on a more productive note (;-)) we've developed a simple
> >string-comparison resolver which currently implements string-based
> >case-insensitive equals, <, <=, >, and >= (this is mostly for
> >literals, but will work on URI's too). It's modeled on the
> >prefix-resolver. Currently the object may not be varialbe (i.e. only
> >comparisons against constants are supported), but with Andrae's info
> >from a few weeks back it should be possible to allow variables for
> >both subject and predicate.
> >
> >Anyway, the point is that we're willing to donate this to the Mulgara
> >codebase - are you interested? If so, does anybody feel like it
> >would be a good/bad idea to merge this with the prefix-resolver so
> >that all extended string-comparisons are in one resolver and model?
> 
> Sounds good, and yes it probably does make sense to combine the  
> various string manipulation predicates in a single resolver, even if  
> they are ultimately separated into different Resolutions.  So I agree  
> you should merge into PrefixResolver, and if you could fix  
> PrefixResolver to properly defer rejection of the constraint until it  
> has sufficient information to actually do so that would be great.

Will do.

> This does remind me though that when I looked at the PrefixResolver,  
> and given your questions earlier, I am convinced that the ResolverSPI  
> doesn't provide sufficient guidance to resolver developers.  I have a  
> few ideas, but basically I think that it was a mistake to allow  
> resolver-writers to try implementing their own resolve() method - or  
> at least to require them to.  A _correct_ resolve() method is really  
> very minimal - it checks to see if it might become possible to  
> resolve the constraint, if not it returns 'Empty', if there exists an  
> interpretation of the constraint that is resolvable then it returns  
> an appropriate 'Resolution'.
[snip]

I've noticed there seems to be certain amount of duplication in the
various resolvers, so from a resolver-writers perspective this sounds
like a good idea.


  Cheers,

  Ronald