| 1 |
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 15:12 -0700, Jeremy Huddleston wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 22:19 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 3 |
> > | but I think having the xml configuration files allows a much more |
| 4 |
> > | robust configuration. |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > How so? Using XML doesn't magically make your data files any different. |
| 7 |
> > It simply makes them much harder to parse. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> That's a matter of opinion. I see it as a way to abstract away the |
| 10 |
> configuration and utilize an existing library to handle the parsing. If |
| 11 |
> we do want to eliminate outside dependencies (which I think is an |
| 12 |
> extremely valid point and concern), then we could internally implement a |
| 13 |
> different configuration format that is easier to parse. I'd probably go |
| 14 |
> for something similar to the samba/gdm config files if we were to go |
| 15 |
> down this road: |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
<snip> |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I've always been a fan of samba style config files..unlike xml they tend |
| 20 |
to be both easy to parse and are human readable. I'd far rather see this |
| 21 |
over XML. It's especially attractive as this is also the way that |
| 22 |
portage is moving (at the moment) as well. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
--Dan |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives