Re: call for alpha testers EulerSharp for dotgnu/pnet

I think that all the files that you need are
-rwxrwxrwx    1 Administ unknown      7841 Dec 13 19:22 Datatype.cs
-rwxrwxrwx    1 Administ unknown     79736 Feb  8 17:40 Euler.cs
-rwxrwxrwx    1 Administ unknown     18275 Feb  3 01:19 Parser.cs
-rwxrwxrwx    1 Administ unknown       843 Jul 19  2002 Stack.cs

in Java we had very poor performance with java.util.Stack
and we then also used the dedicated one in C#
in Stack.cs the second parameter of
  internal void push(Euler e, int i)
is kind of ugly I agree but is keeping track of positions
in a proof (which should be restored during backtracking)

a webservice would be nice I think

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA

                    James Michael DuPont                                                                                  
                    <       To:     Jos De_Roo/AMDUS/MOR/Agfa-NV/BE/BAYER@AGFA                        
                    >                           cc:, introspectors                              
                    Sent by:                     <>, Jos                     
                    www-rdf-interest-requ        De_Roo/AMDUS/MOR/Agfa-NV/BE/BAYER@AGFA,,         
                                                Subject:     Re: call for alpha testers EulerSharp for dotgnu/pnet        
                    2003-02-09 05:50 PM                                                                                   

Thanks for your help here Jos,
now things are really starting to make sense. I will be patching up my
patch later on this week, changing it to use the old stack.

Can you tell me what this second parameter does?

--- Jos De_Roo <> wrote:
> [...]
> > > great, I look forward to the results!
> > > our current Euler.cs runs on
> > > the 1.1 beta .NET Framework redistributable dor win2k
> >
> > Yes, the problem are the the following non-standard items :
> > Push in your code takes a second parameter, this is not standard.
> > Pop should not be called when the stack is empty, i added in
> checks.
> well, I've made a special
> mainly for performance reasons
Ahh, now it all makes sense to me. I was missing these files,
and used the ECMA stack.

> do you suggest other method names?
Just use the same as in the ECMA:

> > the Datatype.IsNumeric is not standard, do you have code for that?
> > Maybe you can send me the dll where it is defined?
> I have to read the standard I guess...
> IsNumeric is a method name I have the code for in
> which basically is just
>   return num[dt] != null;

Ohh, another missing file. Ok i need to get a full list of files...

> or do you mean that you don't have System.Xml
> e.g. XmlConvert? that would be a problem then
> (at least to do RDF datatyping with XML Schema
> part 2 primitive datatypes)

no, all that is there.

> > The method names push and pop are uppercase and not lower.
> > I have made other small changes that you can see in the source.
> right, and there are more such lowercase method names

that is fine, i thought you were using the standard stack.

> > > and runs all the tests in
> that should have been

Ok, i have ran all the test, only two pass on the current
implementatation, that is amazing since i dont even have all the code

> > > but for the RDF parsing we use AskJena.cs which
> > > is an http bridge to Jena which is running on a java VM
> >
> > that sounds interesting.
> > We need to see also the good parts of the Jena API,
> > what parts do you use and like?
> Well, I was wrong again, we actually just do
> fromWeb("http://localhost/AskJena?fromWeb=" +
> (!local?uri:uri.Substring(6)));
> and the AskJena is in Java (remarkable how I forgot that)
> Anyhow, the Jena part (actually the Jena 2 pre-alpha)
> that we use is just
> ====

Ahh, well we should talk to the dotgnu guys about java and
c# interconnection.

> this was made to have something but
> maybe we better look for a webservice solution

also about webservices, they are working on some right now.

James Michael DuPont

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.

Received on Monday, 10 February 2003 19:30:27 UTC