Re: URGENT--features for "XyWrite 5," replies needed

[cld@xxxxxxxx]

Reply to note from Kari Eveli  Sun, 11 Nov 2018 19:46:27 +0200

> My sketch for a preliminary software architecture

Kari, you've sketched a masterpiece from my point of view. I'd only add portability, and subtract
separate builds for Xy3 and 4. I'd much rather have a big-tent, ecumenical Xy5 than one that
perpetuates the schism that Signature caused by its trauma-inducing awfulness. There should simply
be customizable settings for Xy3|4 formatting, XPL interpretation, and so forth. As for printing, I
wouldn't hold out much hope for backward compatibility with either Xy4 or Xy3 printer files, if the
program will indeed integrate with Windows printing facilities, as it should.

That said, given Harry's initial post, it may be advisable to tamp down expectations about
modularity, switchability between v3 and v4, and the like. As Harry said:

HB> What they already have, for Nota Bene, is written in Assembler (as
HB> XyWrite has always been) and is adapted to sit on top of Windows.
HB> What Steve is talking about doing is streamlining what they have
HB> and getting it to work with the U2, then adding whatever features
HB> we are willing to pay for.

I take this to mean that the assembly language core is what it is, and that the
"5-ifization" of it would entail removing the unnecessary and tinkering with it to achieve
compatibility with baseline fourth-generation XPL. Whatever XPL functionality NBWin has or had was
always based on XPL 4 syntax, and it seems unlikely that this part of the core could easily be
back-fitted to accommodate XPL 3. So, realistically, the tent may not be as big as we'd all like it
to be.

--
Carl Distefano
cld@xxxxxxxx