1 |
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> Alan McKinnon wrote: |
3 |
>> |
4 |
>> On Monday 18 January 2010 18:26:21 Mike Edenfield wrote: |
5 |
>> |
6 |
>>>> |
7 |
>>>> +1 I do OK with plain text but no clue on the new xml stuff. Why not |
8 |
>>>> just keep it simple? Is xml REALLY needed? |
9 |
>>>> |
10 |
>>> |
11 |
>>> XML allows you to generate complex, structured, hierarchical data that |
12 |
>>> can be read, changed, and stored by well-tested third party libraries that |
13 |
>>> don't need to know anything about the contents or meaning of your |
14 |
>>> configuration data beforehand. This means I, as a developer, don't need to |
15 |
>>> write any code to read and parse configurations, validate the syntax or |
16 |
>>> structure (only the content), or persist it back out. |
17 |
>>> |
18 |
>>> In simpler terms: less time spent on the configuration parser, more time |
19 |
>>> spent being productive. |
20 |
>>> |
21 |
>> |
22 |
>> |
23 |
>> Just as code is read many more times than it is written, so is a package |
24 |
>> configured by the end user many more times than the config parser studied by |
25 |
>> the developer. |
26 |
>> |
27 |
>> Your post makes sense until you realise that the use of XML in a |
28 |
>> configuration designed to be changed by the user renders the package |
29 |
>> virtually unusable. Given a choice between me as a developer struggling with |
30 |
>> a config parser versus vast swathes of users dumping the package because of |
31 |
>> the same parser, I'd say it's me that has to work harder, not my users. |
32 |
>> |
33 |
>> |
34 |
> |
35 |
> I'll add this, if devicekit uses xml and doesn't work "out of the box," as |
36 |
> in me not having to config the thing, then it is no better than hal. It may |
37 |
> be that if I could do xml that I could have gotten hal to work. Thing is, I |
38 |
> can't do xml at the time. I suspect that I am not alone on this. |
39 |
> |
40 |
> So, it is possible that hal was doomed by xml for me at least. If devicekit |
41 |
> uses it, then it may get masked as well. Sounds like devicekit needs to be |
42 |
> really good. I'm sort of hooked on a working keyboard and a mouse for some |
43 |
> reason. Call me silly but they sort of make the puter work. |
44 |
|
45 |
Well I think that if everything works as it is designed to you |
46 |
shouldn't really need to be editing those XML files in the first |
47 |
place. I think you're supposed to be able to do all of the relevant |
48 |
config settings in your desktop environment such as Gnome or KDE (if |
49 |
you use one). Like setting keyboard mappings, fonts, mouse config, |
50 |
screen resolution, etc. The usual stuff that used to go in xorg.conf. |
51 |
|
52 |
Of course, if your keyboard mapping is wrong and you can't even log-in |
53 |
to the DE in the first place then configuring it through there will |
54 |
probably be difficult... :) And if you don't use Gnome or KDE then |
55 |
it can get interesting, too... |