David MENTRE wrote:
> 2006/1/6, Alain Frisch <Alain.Frisch@inria.fr>:
> 
>>I've created a new mailing list to host announces and discussions about
>>OCamlDuce
>[...]
> Was it really necessary? There is not so much traffic on CDuce list
> (for both CDuce and OCamlDuce).

I had the feeling to spam CDuce users with OCamlDuce-related news.
Since the issues are different for CDuce and OCamlDuce, a more 
fine-grained decomposition cannot harm. Also, it gives me an idea of the 
popularity of OCamlDuce (which is an incentive to maintain it).

> Do you intend to maintain OCamlDuce in the long term, in parallel with CDuce?

OCamlDuce is easier to maintain than CDuce, because the code base is 
smaller and it has no dependency on third-party libraries. Synchronizing 
with OCaml's CVS is easy; I had no conflict moving from 3.08 to 3.09. 
The low-level XML things (types, patterns, values) are shared between 
CDuce and OCamlDuce, so it's not a big deal to maintain both in 
parallel. I cannot make any promise for the long term, though.

> I still not have tested it but for our use of CDuce (read and write of
> XML files), ocamlduce might simplify our code, so we could switch from
> cduce to ocamlduce.

What you describe is the typical scenario for which OCamlDuce was 
designed. My advice would be to hide all the use of OCamlDuce features
in one or several modules with a pure OCaml interface. This way, you 
could always change the implementation if OCamlDuce dies.

 > (Thomas is on this list and might have some comments ;-).

Please send the comments to ocamlduce@cduce.org :-)

-- Alain