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: 2002-06-13 07:18:44 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: 13 Jun 2002 07:18:44 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <4519e058.0206130618.2ef74ee8@posting.google.com> References: <3CFC5DB2.A21DCF61@cs.tu-berlin.de> <4519e058.0206041129.5b250124@posting.google.com> <4519e058.0206100702.5a4b431a@posting.google.com> <3D0769F7.68F5BD9C@san.rr.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.115.221.98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1023977924 25111 127.0.0.1 (13 Jun 2002 14:18:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 Jun 2002 14:18:44 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:25867 Date: 2002-06-13T14:18:44+00:00 List-Id: Stephen Leake wrote in message news:... > 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)