Re: A standard package for config files is needed

[dennison@telepath.com (Ted Dennison)]

"Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org> wrote in message news:<ad3bbh$p54$1@nh.pace.co.uk>...
> Well, my understanding of the original post was that it was a hypothetical
...
> registry???" Not that it had to duplicate exactly what the registry does -
> although there may be those who would want that.

What I'm trying to get a gauge for is if it is possible to get any
kind of agreement on what format or language to use.

> build the structure to suit that. If you want a tree-like structure, it
> might be viewed as a Map of Maps. My idea was that if you had Maps

Hmmmm. I suppose it could at that.


> If we had a "Registry" (I use the term in the loose sense) package that was
> built from Maps, it might make sense to build a "Registry Editing" package -

I'd think you want the ability to load mappings from a file
(obviously), save mappings out to a file, and edit it with a simple
text editor.

The file format for something like this has to be flat text for a
number of reasons, not limited to:

   o Useability - On many systems the whole point of a configuration
file is that it can be edited off-line without using any special tools
or programs.
   o Portability - Use of this package should not, in and of itself,
render a system non-portable. It would be almost impossible to come up
with a binary format that is portable. It can be done, but using text
as the format is probably the easiest way.


You are absolutely right that this opens a big can of worms as to what
the proper format should be. That's why I'm most interested in if its
possible to reach some kind of consensus on what the format should be.

Just to lift another rock; I've seen programs that use CSV for
configuration files. This allows the files to be easily manipluated
with common database or spreadsheet tools. It also allows for easy
addition of all sorts of attributes.