Re: [Fenfire-dev] PEG swamp_easier--benja: An easier API for Swamp

[Benja Fallenstein]

Matti Katila wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Benja Fallenstein wrote:
> > But Swamp must also be easy to use, because it is
> > the API that everyone hacking Fenfire will have to learn
> > in order to do anything, so it is vital that it doesn't
> > have a steep learning curve.
>
> What's wrong with it currently?-)

When I write it, I have to think about how to write each function first 
in order to get the correct variant; when I read it, I don't understand 
immediately what some piece of code does, but have to figure it out. 
It's like solving an equation with its 1s, As, Xs and gobbledygook 
method names (well, I know what findN is, but it's still hard to read 
because it doesn't follow Java conventions that I'm used to).

What I would need to find Swamp usable is method names that say what 
they do, so that when reading a piece of code, it's immediately clear 
what happens.

(Having less superfluous syntax for iterating is one part of that.)

> > I believe this API will be substantially simpler to use
> > than the one we have at the moment, and not lose
> > anything w.r.t. speed. In fact, it may speed things up
> > in the future, because we can cache the ``Triples`` objects.
>
> I see reading and writing subj./pred./obj./ very irritating because then I 
> need to remember the order of RDF triplet.

Hm. For me, that is completely natural.

In fact refering to the components by their *role* seems more natural 
than their position in the triple, which is basically arbitrary...

> Anyway, I don't have any cons for iterating trough triplets instead of 
> nodes and the idea for this peg was it, wasn't it? (Please make 
> another peg for method names.. :)

I've split the PEG in two as requested.

- Benja