Re: Use of XML for config files

[dennison@telepath.com (Ted Dennison)]

Stephen Leake <stephen.a.leake.1@gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote in message news:<u3cvsmlhy.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>...
> Yes. So far, I see two benefits:
> 
> 1) A standard small parser is already written; Glib.XML

I agree with your assessment (snipped) that this "benifit" actually
isn't a huge deal. Writing a parser for the .ini format should be
exceedingly simple (perhaps as simple as *using* Glib.XML), and that
is what you have to set this against.

> 2) The potential for an application to grow smoothly beyond a simple
>    config file to a full-fledged XML file.

I could indeed see that being a minor benifit for a small minority of
users. But I hardly think it counterbalances the hours the rest of us
will have to spend on the phone explaining XML to users so that they
can reconfigure their application.

I'm thinking if we go with XML we will probably have to mandate a GUI
config file editor (like Microsoft's regedt) be distributed with a
Free license (so it can be given to users without incurring extra
fees) with every compiler. I can't think of any other way to make up
for loosing user-editability enough to make XML a viable option.

> Hmm, there is a third benefit; we get to use a current buzzword :).

If I really cared about such things, I'd be over in comp.lang.c# (or
whatever) helping with their standard library.

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