Re: [gentoo-dev] USE database?

[Zach Forrest]

>
 > The problem is that writing things in XML will be even harder than the
 > pretty clean syntax you proposed.
 >

Maybe a little more laborious, but not really that hard. Take this for 
example:

use_var={"name":"esd",
          "description":"Enable enlightenment sound daemon support.",
          "priority":"OPTIONAL",
          "depends":"media-sound/esound"}

To write this in XML it would look like this:

<usedatabase>

   <useflag name=esd>
     <description>Enable enlightenment sound daemon support</description>
     <priority>OPTIONAL</priority>
     <depends>media-sound/esound</depends>
   </useflag>

</usedatabase>

(OK, not quite as _pretty_, but I've seen worse. The syntax, though, is 
clean.)

Also, I don't think it would be too painful because it's not like 
someone would have to spend all day editing/adding entries. It would be 
pretty easy to write a script to prompt for the name/desc/etc. and 
generate the  XML.

Benefits of using XML also include:
- Rules, such as declaring "priority" flags, can be created in and 
enforced by a schema.
- Validation in general.
- Consistent formatting would also be easy with XML.
- Flexibility.

(Not to sound like a commercial.)



Mikael Hallendal wrote:

> tor 2001-12-06 klockan 19.12 skrev Zach Forrest:
>
>>Before using python as an example, I had actually played with the idea
>>of using XML. Any thoughts on this? I know that compared to a plain text
>>file both of these notions seem somewhat cumbersome, but there are a
>>couple of arguments for using a more structured approach. One,
>>programatically handling the data is easier. Using either python or XML
>>(and a parser) allows named access rather positional access to the
>>fields. It also makes the definition of "records" more clear and easier
>>to understand for new developers (i.e. me). It wouldn't be too difficult
>>to parse XML (even into a dictionary).
>>
>
> Yes, I thought about using XML too, as you say, for parsing the file
> it'll be better since we don't narrow it down to python. Any language
> that can parse XML (most) can be used for tools and such.
>
> The problem is that writing things in XML will be even harder than the
> pretty clean syntax you proposed.

>
>>As far as GConf is concerned, I think that the base system should have
>>as few dependencies as possible. Python is already required, and, in my
>>opinion, with its XML capabilities (or just using dictionaries) I
>>believe a solution along these lines would be preferable.
>>
>
> Yes, GConf is IMHO not an option today, perhaps in the future when it:
> 1) is more stable/tested for these kind of things.
> 2) has nice tools for editing the contents.
>
> Regards,
>   Mikael Hallendal
>
>