From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,a26758eec3c2e1ad X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-04 12:29:55 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: dennison@telepath.com (Ted Dennison) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Use of XML for config files Date: 4 Jun 2002 12:29:54 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <4519e058.0206041129.5b250124@posting.google.com> References: <3CFC5DB2.A21DCF61@cs.tu-berlin.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.115.221.98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1023218995 25601 127.0.0.1 (4 Jun 2002 19:29:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 4 Jun 2002 19:29:55 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:25319 Date: 2002-06-04T19:29:55+00:00 List-Id: Volkert Barr wrote in message news:<3CFC5DB2.A21DCF61@cs.tu-berlin.de>... > the Configuration Packages! If there is a consensus that XML is needed, > the Spitbowl Package must be ported! I don't think this would be nessecary or a good idea. Making our own Configuration XML parser is not out of the question. Parsing any XML language that anyone could ever come up with is a very different task than parsing a specific XML language. Making an XML parser customised to the configuration XML language (whatever that would end up being) may be more work than using ACT's XML reader, but it wouldn't be an undoable effort. We really only need to make the package *spec*s portable Ada. It would be nice to have a portable reference implementation too, but its not an absolute nessecity to have one, as long as its *possible* to make one. However, I agree with you that its probably more work than the task requires. I think it would be silly to use XML, unless we are getting something out of it that we can't easily get out of other grammars. PR is *not* a sufficient answer. :-) What that means is that if we were to use XML, we should support both user-defined configuration item attributes and some kind of object nesting (configuration items defined within other configuration items). I haven't really heard anyone seriously arguing the usefulness of this stuff. If we are to stick with simple attribute-value pairs, then XML would be major overkill. -- T.E.D. Home - mailto:dennison@telepath.com (Yahoo: Ted_Dennison) Homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html