| 1 |
tor 2001-12-06 klockan 19.12 skrev Zach Forrest: |
| 2 |
> Before using python as an example, I had actually played with the idea |
| 3 |
> of using XML. Any thoughts on this? I know that compared to a plain text |
| 4 |
> file both of these notions seem somewhat cumbersome, but there are a |
| 5 |
> couple of arguments for using a more structured approach. One, |
| 6 |
> programatically handling the data is easier. Using either python or XML |
| 7 |
> (and a parser) allows named access rather positional access to the |
| 8 |
> fields. It also makes the definition of "records" more clear and easier |
| 9 |
> to understand for new developers (i.e. me). It wouldn't be too difficult |
| 10 |
> to parse XML (even into a dictionary). |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Yes, I thought about using XML too, as you say, for parsing the file |
| 13 |
it'll be better since we don't narrow it down to python. Any language |
| 14 |
that can parse XML (most) can be used for tools and such. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
The problem is that writing things in XML will be even harder than the |
| 17 |
pretty clean syntax you proposed. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> As far as GConf is concerned, I think that the base system should have |
| 20 |
> as few dependencies as possible. Python is already required, and, in my |
| 21 |
> opinion, with its XML capabilities (or just using dictionaries) I |
| 22 |
> believe a solution along these lines would be preferable. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Yes, GConf is IMHO not an option today, perhaps in the future when it: |
| 25 |
1) is more stable/tested for these kind of things. |
| 26 |
2) has nice tools for editing the contents. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Regards, |
| 29 |
Mikael Hallendal |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Mikael Hallendal |
| 34 |
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team Leader |
| 35 |
CodeFactory AB, Stockholm, Sweden |
Archives