tika-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Mattmann <chris.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject [general discussion, moved from TIKA-7]
Date Wed, 13 Jun 2007 14:34:06 GMT

>> I think that these questions need to be answered before we move forward with
>> more code development.

>>I disagree. I would prefer to have some concrete code in SVN, and I think the
>>stuff from Rida is a good starting point. Often it is much easier to discuss
>>design issues if you have concrete code that you can point to as an example. I
>>also much prefer an evolving codebase over a waterfall model where we first
>>design the "perfect" architecture and only then start implementing it.

I'm not sure I follow you here Jukka. I wasn't saying that we shouldn't have
code in SVN, simply, that we should properly design the way that the system
is going to work before we start moving code, "just to have code" within
SVN. I don't think everyone should just start dumping the sources into
Tika's SVN, and then we'll just have everyone sort it out moving forward.
I'm fine with having code for Tika, however, we at least need to have:

1. use cases for Tika (how does a user interact with it?)
2. generic interfaces and extension points that will support these use cases
3. implementations of those interfaces and concrete classes

We have a few cases for item #1, however, there are no specs for #2 and #3,
which must come at least during this time when new code is getting attached,
no? That's all I was calling for: a discussion of items #2 and #3, and
things like that, before we start moving code over and having Tika be a
warehouse for code from the 3 projects:

>From the Tika proposal:

"No existing codebase is selected as "the" starting point of Tika to avoid
inheriting the world view and design limitations of any single project. "

Am I off base here?

Cheers,
  Chris
 



Mime
View raw message