Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: gcc-config 2.0 development

[Paul Varner]

On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 18:14 -0400, Daniel Ostrow wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 15:12 -0700, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 22:19 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > | but I think having the xml configuration files allows a much more
> > > | robust configuration.
> > >
> > > How so? Using XML doesn't magically make your data files any different.
> > > It simply makes them much harder to parse.
> >
> > That's a matter of opinion.  I see it as a way to abstract away the
> > configuration and utilize an existing library to handle the parsing.  If
> > we do want to eliminate outside dependencies (which I think is an
> > extremely valid point and concern), then we could internally implement a
> > different configuration format that is easier to parse.  I'd probably go
> > for something similar to the samba/gdm config files if we were to go
> > down this road:
>
> <snip>
>
> I've always been a fan of samba style config files..unlike xml they tend
> to be both easy to parse and are human readable. I'd far rather see this
> over XML. It's especially attractive as this is also the way that
> portage is moving (at the moment) as well.

<AOL>
me too
</AOL>

I highly prefer the samba style config file over an XML file. It is easy
to read, parse, and edit by both human and machine.

Regards,
Paul
-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list