1 |
On Tuesday 19 January 2010 00:29:18 Neil Bothwick wrote: |
2 |
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 19:53:16 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
3 |
> > Your post makes sense until you realise that the use of XML in a |
4 |
> > configuration designed to be changed by the user renders the package |
5 |
> > virtually unusable. Given a choice between me as a developer struggling |
6 |
> > with a config parser versus vast swathes of users dumping the package |
7 |
> > because of the same parser, I'd say it's me that has to work harder, |
8 |
> > not my users. |
9 |
> |
10 |
> If we are truly trying to make Linux more accessible, with things like |
11 |
> the plug and play hal offers, should we even be contemplating editing |
12 |
> config files? |
13 |
> |
14 |
> XML is a machine-readable file format that just happens to use ASCII |
15 |
> characters, it is not meant to be modified by a text editor, so if your |
16 |
> program uses XML configuration files, it should include a means of |
17 |
> editing those files that does not include the use of vim. |
18 |
|
19 |
which almost by definition means you need an xml-information parser on par |
20 |
with an xml-parser to figure out what the hell the fields mean, then design an |
21 |
intelligent viewer-editor thingy that lets the user add-delete-change the |
22 |
information in the xml file. All the while displaying to the user at least |
23 |
some information about the fields in view. Shaes of .chm anyone? |
24 |
|
25 |
By the time you've done all that and made the thing semi-usable, you've |
26 |
expended more effort than if you had written you own xml-parser from scratch. |
27 |
In C, python and perl. Plus C++ for good measure just to show how clever you |
28 |
are. |
29 |
|
30 |
As said before by someone else, hal and everything about it is a classic case |
31 |
of "second system syndrome". It should be a comp-sci object case :-) |
32 |
|
33 |
|
34 |
|
35 |
-- |
36 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |