| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 19:33:37 +0100 Jan Kundrát <jkt@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> | "Once this tool is implemented and well tested it can be integrated |
| 4 |
> | into portage." |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> can ! will. It might, but don't count on it. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> | GLSA already contains stuff for marking items as valid only for given |
| 9 |
> | systems, for "injecting" them etc. Why don't use existing code? Why |
| 10 |
> | duplication? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Because it's quicker to invent a wheel which is actually round. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Reinventing rounder wheels seems to be a common hobby. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> | > You think XML magically makes things compatible? Then I suggest you |
| 17 |
> | > write a GuieXML to Docbook conversion tool, and see how many |
| 18 |
> | > thousand lines of XSLT it takes. All XML does is move the |
| 19 |
> | > conversion and parsing problems to a different, more complex level. |
| 20 |
> | |
| 21 |
> | I'm not familiar with DocBook, but I doubt I'll need thousands of |
| 22 |
> | lines of code. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Oh? Our GuideXML to HTML conversion is thousands of lines of code... |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Plain wrong, but you have always made it clear that you are not only biased |
| 27 |
against XML for anything, but also very much XML challenged. |
| 28 |
Don't worry, some are even worse than you are, worse enough to claim that XML |
| 29 |
is hard to parse because "XML files from a programming perspective require |
| 30 |
extra logic to parse. Compare the following key value pair and xml tag pseudo |
| 31 |
parsing logic for configuration: |
| 32 |
<tag1>entry</tag1> |
| 33 |
Hit a >, tag1 as realized tag name, read until <, read ahead one to ensure a |
| 34 |
closing slash, read until > to get the tag name, compare tag name with |
| 35 |
previous tag name to see what tag it's closing. store value attached to tag1." |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Just a short sample against metadata.xml using ruby/dom instead of python/sax: |
| 38 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~neysx/metax.rb |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Discarding XML for the reasons some are using is like recommending key=value |
| 41 |
flat .ini files because windows used it in the 80s. |
| 42 |
They have to be parsed as well, and, as opposed to XML, you have to check for |
| 43 |
unknown keys, double keys, missing ones, then you need some grouping and you |
| 44 |
introduce [sections], which you have to check as well, no doubles, no missing |
| 45 |
ones, no illegal ones, then you need a deeper hierarchy and you use |
| 46 |
key=/path/to/another/file.ini... |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
Both have reasons to be used, neither is a one-fits-all answer. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
Anyway, this is getting off-topic, and, FWIW, I believe the suggested format |
| 51 |
is adequate because it is light, easy to write, read, parse, and even |
| 52 |
transform into XML should one process ever need it. Besides, it is very much |
| 53 |
standard, if it's good enough for billions of mail and http messages a day, |
| 54 |
it's probably good enough for us. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
-- |
| 57 |
/ Xavier Neys |
| 58 |
\_ Gentoo Documentation Project |
| 59 |
/ French & Internationalisation Lead |
| 60 |
\ http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en |
| 61 |
/\ |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
-- |
| 65 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives