Re: Use of XML for config files

[dennison@telepath.com (Ted Dennison)]

Darren New <dnew@san.rr.com> wrote in message news:<3D0769F7.68F5BD9C@san.rr.com>...
> Ted was talking about the code being smaller, not the config file.
>
> It is far easier to split a string at an = than it is to parse even
> restricted XML.


It's always nice when at least one person understands what I write.
:-)

> The people editing the config file might not be Ada programmers.

My big worry in all this is that we will go through all this effort,
get something approved, and I will never be able to use it because the
syntax will be to complicated for our customers to deal with.

I don't think I'm alone on this issue. Whatever you propose, picture
yourself on the phone trying to explain to a (non-programmer) customer
how to add or change a value.

(XML)
> in attributes, it requires that less-than and ampersand in PCDATA be
> escaped, none of which is true for INI formats and all of which is true

Ewwww. I'd forgotten about that issue. Do we (assming XML use)
actually intend to enforce this bit of nastyness to maintain
theoretical XML compliance, or do we bend the rules to make it a bit
easier to use for people who aren't XML experts? I'd say if we hose
them with XML in the first place, we might as well go all the way and
do it right. :-(

> I think the question you have to answer clearly, if you're advocating XML,
> is what benefit does it offer this project above and beyond the capabilities
> that an INI-format file would offer?

...that makes worth:

   o  Extra facility implementation complexity
   o  More error-prone config syntax
   o  Less (human) readable files
   o  Essentially making the configuration files unsuable by anyone
who isn't a programmer


-- 
T.E.D. 
Home     -  mailto:dennison@telepath.com (Yahoo: Ted_Dennison)
Homepage -  (temporarily down)