Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We鈥檒l occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

attranslate - A rewrite of json-autotranslate #34

Open
fkirc opened this issue Nov 1, 2020 · 0 comments
Open

attranslate - A rewrite of json-autotranslate #34

fkirc opened this issue Nov 1, 2020 · 0 comments

Comments

@fkirc
Copy link
Contributor

fkirc commented Nov 1, 2020

First of all, thank you for writing json-autotranslate 馃憤
json-autotranslate worked great for all my i18next-projects 馃槑

Nevertheless, I came to the conclusion that a complete rewrite of json-autotranslate is appropriate.
The resulting rewrite is attranslate: https://github.com/fkirc/attranslate
attranslate addresses the following features that I was missing in JSON-autotranslate:

  • Do not enforce any specific folder-structure. Not every project uses a folder-structure that is prescribed by i18next.
  • Support additional file-formats other than JSON (XML, Plist, YAML, PO/POT).
  • Generate caches only for source-files, but not for target-files. This reduces noise in version-control.
  • Place a higher emphasis on file-stability, that is, only change a minimum number of lines.
  • Ensure quality with a comprehensive test-suite.
  • Optimize performance. For example, remove available-language-checks that were painful to keep up-to-date.
  • Make it simpler to add new services or new file-formats. For example, move matching-logic from individual services into the core-unit.

However, despite of all those differences, there is still a lot of duplication between attranslate and json-autotranslate.
This raises the question whether it is really necessary to maintain both codebases in the long-term.
Ideally, all maintenance effort would go into one codebase.
Please let me know whether you would be open to a collaboration instead of maintaining competing sub-projects.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant