Re: [gentoo-dev] USE database?

[Sebastian Werner]

I like it more to place in in attrib tags:

<usedatabase>

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

</usedatabase>

Why not XML... it's really nice to edit i think

Regards 
Sebastian

06.12.2001 23:33:21, Zach Forrest <diatribe@××××.ca> wrote:

> >
> > 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
>>
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>gentoo-dev mailing list
>gentoo-dev@g.o
>http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev
>