| 1 |
On Monday 18 January 2010 18:26:21 Mike Edenfield wrote: |
| 2 |
> > +1 I do OK with plain text but no clue on the new xml stuff. Why not |
| 3 |
> > just keep it simple? Is xml REALLY needed? |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> XML allows you to generate complex, structured, hierarchical data that |
| 6 |
> can be read, changed, and stored by well-tested third party libraries |
| 7 |
> that don't need to know anything about the contents or meaning of your |
| 8 |
> configuration data beforehand. This means I, as a developer, don't need |
| 9 |
> to write any code to read and parse configurations, validate the syntax |
| 10 |
> or structure (only the content), or persist it back out. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> In simpler terms: less time spent on the configuration parser, more time |
| 13 |
> spent being productive. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Just as code is read many more times than it is written, so is a package |
| 17 |
configured by the end user many more times than the config parser studied by |
| 18 |
the developer. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Your post makes sense until you realise that the use of XML in a configuration |
| 21 |
designed to be changed by the user renders the package virtually unusable. |
| 22 |
Given a choice between me as a developer struggling with a config parser |
| 23 |
versus vast swathes of users dumping the package because of the same parser, |
| 24 |
I'd say it's me that has to work harder, not my users. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives