Perl TM 1.45 Maintenance Release

This is only a bugfix release.

I am playing with the thought to remove the experimental CTM support. I had a look at the current CTM draft and simply do not understand it. Or, to be more precise, I do not understand the consequences for my implementation. Maybe I look at it in another year or so.

Instead I would love to see JTM support. That would be a nice addition to the TM::IP server.

I am also considering to put the existing TMQL support into a separate package.

Posted In

What's wrong with CTM?

A bit surprised by your comment about CTM. Could you say more about what you think the problem with the spec is? Maybe we could fix it?

Lars Marius Garshol (not verified) | Fri, 04/17/2009 - 20:43

Re: What's wrong with CTM?

Could you say more about what you think the problem with the spec is?

One thing which always puts me off is the %include vs. %merge directive stuff. I find it quite disturbing that my naive, simplistic understanding of text inclusion and topic map merge conflicts with that of CTM.

There might be good technical reasons for the way it is solved, but I failed to see how this can be materialized into my way of implementing this.

The other thing I got very unsure about is the handling of templates. Also here I had an do what I think it should do approach, but now I seriously wonder how much of my current assumptions were wrong.

I am a casual user of such a technology, so I expect to be able to do this over a weekend. But I found myself analyzing all possible consequences of the spec. I am sure it can be done, but it will have to wait for a paying customer. Or my early retirement.

rho | Sat, 04/18/2009 - 10:09

Re: What's wrong with CTM?

It's certainly true that CTM is harder to implement than it perhaps should be. I'm not sure what, if anything, we should do about that. I'd feel more at ease if we had more implementations than just those by the two Larses.

Lars Marius Garshol (not verified) | Sat, 04/18/2009 - 14:53