| Re: [railML2] Extension proposal: pattern trains, distributions and slots [message #2621 is a reply to message #2602] |
Fri, 08 January 2021 19:36   |
Christian Rößiger
Messages: 61
Registered: March 2015
|
Member |
|
|
Hello all,
I agree with Milan. In my opinion, the train parts referenced by
<patternTrain>s should be a separate XML class, apart from the existing
<trainPart>s.
If the existing <trainPart> were to be reused, we would have to document
very extensively which attributes may be used in which use case and what
their meaning is in each context.
By creating a separate class, we can provide for the new
"<patternTrainPart>" exactly the attributes that are needed.
Another argument is that there are implementations of railML readers
that are initially only interested in the <trainPart>s (not trains) of a
railML file. If a railML file contained both "classic" <trainPart>s and
new <patternTrainPart>s, it would be difficult to decide which type of
<trainPart> it was.
As with Thomas' suggestion for modelling the <patternTrain>, I would
prefer to create a common (internal) base class for the existing
<trainPart> and the new <patternTrainPart> to reuse as much of the
modelling as possible.
Best regards
Christian
--
iRFP e. K. · Institut für Regional- und Fernverkehrsplanung
Hochschulstr. 45, 01069 Dresden
Tel. +49 351 4706819 · Fax. +49 351 4768190 · www.irfp.de
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Dresden, HRA 9347
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
