| 1 |
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 22:19 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> | but I think having the xml configuration files allows a much more |
| 3 |
> | robust configuration. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> How so? Using XML doesn't magically make your data files any different. |
| 6 |
> It simply makes them much harder to parse. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
That's a matter of opinion. I see it as a way to abstract away the |
| 9 |
configuration and utilize an existing library to handle the parsing. If |
| 10 |
we do want to eliminate outside dependencies (which I think is an |
| 11 |
extremely valid point and concern), then we could internally implement a |
| 12 |
different configuration format that is easier to parse. I'd probably go |
| 13 |
for something similar to the samba/gdm config files if we were to go |
| 14 |
down this road: |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
selection.conf: |
| 17 |
[global] |
| 18 |
default_chost = i686-pc-linux-gnu |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
[i686-pc-linux-gnu] |
| 21 |
version=i686-pc-linux-gnu-3.4.4 |
| 22 |
profile=vanilla |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
i686-pc-linux-gnu-3.4.4.conf: |
| 25 |
[global] |
| 26 |
version=i686-pc-linux-gnu-3.4.4 |
| 27 |
bindir=/usr/i686-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/3.4.4 |
| 28 |
manpath=blah |
| 29 |
infopath=blah |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
[vanilla] |
| 32 |
ldpath=blah |
| 33 |
spec=blah |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
[hardened] |
| 36 |
... |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
So what do people think of these two options? |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
--Jeremy |
Archives