| 1 |
On Tuesday 09 August 2005 06:37 pm, Paul Varner wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 18:14 -0400, Daniel Ostrow wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 15:12 -0700, Jeremy Huddleston wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 22:19 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > > | but I think having the xml configuration files allows a much more |
| 6 |
> > > > | robust configuration. |
| 7 |
> > > > |
| 8 |
> > > > How so? Using XML doesn't magically make your data files any |
| 9 |
> > > > different. It simply makes them much harder to parse. |
| 10 |
> > > |
| 11 |
> > > That's a matter of opinion. I see it as a way to abstract away the |
| 12 |
> > > configuration and utilize an existing library to handle the parsing. |
| 13 |
> > > If we do want to eliminate outside dependencies (which I think is an |
| 14 |
> > > extremely valid point and concern), then we could internally implement |
| 15 |
> > > a different configuration format that is easier to parse. I'd probably |
| 16 |
> > > go for something similar to the samba/gdm config files if we were to go |
| 17 |
> > > down this road: |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > <snip> |
| 20 |
> > |
| 21 |
> > I've always been a fan of samba style config files..unlike xml they tend |
| 22 |
> > to be both easy to parse and are human readable. I'd far rather see this |
| 23 |
> > over XML. It's especially attractive as this is also the way that |
| 24 |
> > portage is moving (at the moment) as well. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> <AOL> |
| 27 |
> me too |
| 28 |
> </AOL> |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> I highly prefer the samba style config file over an XML file. It is easy |
| 31 |
> to read, parse, and edit by both human and machine. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
arent 'samba style configs' just glorified ini files ? :) |
| 34 |
-mike |
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives