| 1 |
On Tuesday 01 of November 2005 19:25 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 17:22:29 +0100 Jan Kundrát <jkt@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> | What's wrong with XML format similar to the one that is used for our |
| 4 |
> | GLSAs? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> 1. Portage does not handle XML. Portage will not handle XML in the |
| 7 |
> near future. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
How will it handle GLSAs then? [1] |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> 5. XML is merely adding another problem to the one we have already. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Could you please explain? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> There is no XML in this GLEP for the same reasons that there is no |
| 16 |
> Java, CORBA, EJBs, web services, on demand computing initiatives or |
| 17 |
> invisible pink unicorns. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I'm not sure if our GLSAs use PHP, ODBC, ASP, SOAP, computer grids or |
| 20 |
invisible pink unicorns while I'm pretty sure they do use XML. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> I have an eselect module which can read these news files. The whole |
| 23 |
> thing is about the same size as the DTD would need to be for an |
| 24 |
> XML-based solution. I have a parser written for the format in question. |
| 25 |
> The whole thing is smaller than the initialisation code for an off the |
| 26 |
> shelf XML parser. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Great. Why haven't you just used existing code from `glsa-check`, BTW? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> It's not a question of "what's wrong with XML?". It's a question of |
| 31 |
> "what advantage would we gain by strapping a giant flapping wet kipper |
| 32 |
> to a bicycle?". |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Or (a little bit rephrased) "why should we stick with consistent file |
| 35 |
formats". |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
[1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/portage/glsa-integration.xml |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Cheers, |
| 40 |
-jkt |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth |
Archives