1 |
On 1/18/2010 5:10 AM, Dale wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> +1 I do OK with plain text but no clue on the new xml stuff. Why not |
4 |
> just keep it simple? Is xml REALLY needed? |
5 |
|
6 |
XML allows you to generate complex, structured, hierarchical data that |
7 |
can be read, changed, and stored by well-tested third party libraries |
8 |
that don't need to know anything about the contents or meaning of your |
9 |
configuration data beforehand. This means I, as a developer, don't need |
10 |
to write any code to read and parse configurations, validate the syntax |
11 |
or structure (only the content), or persist it back out. |
12 |
|
13 |
In simpler terms: less time spent on the configuration parser, more time |
14 |
spent being productive. |
15 |
|
16 |
If there was a less-verbose alternative that was as easy to implement, |
17 |
with known stable parsing libraries, that had the same expressiveness as |
18 |
XML, I'd probably use that instead. But when you're talking about data |
19 |
that goes beyond a simple list of name/value pairs, anything attempt to |
20 |
stream it to a flat-file format is going to result in something that is |
21 |
either 1) redundant, or 2) hard to read. I'd go with 2 over 1 any day. |
22 |
|
23 |
In my opinion, if the worst thing you can come up with to complain about |
24 |
is "they used XML for their configuration files", then I'd say that |
25 |
software is in pretty good shape. On the other hand, even I can see |
26 |
that HAL has plenty of problems (besides its XML configuration). The |
27 |
fact that it completely fails to work for you being a good example :) |
28 |
|
29 |
--Mike |