RE: A standard package for config files is needed

["Robert C. Leif" <rleif@rleif.com>]

From: Bob Leif
To: Preben et al.

Firstly,"3) Would need a DTD for each the config file." No! Since XML
schemas can almost have a one to one correspondence with an Ada package,
the Ada community benefits by the use of Schemas.

XML has two advantages over Ada. 1) More users and 2) eventually more
tools. It has the disadvantage, that except for XSL Fo, XML lacks
subprograms. Parenthetically, XML would benefit from the services of Ada
language lawyers.

As for bloat, if readability requires bloat, then it is by far the
lesser of two evils.

-----Original Message-----
From: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org
[mailto:comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org] On Behalf Of Preben Randhol
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 4:07 AM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: Re: A standard package for config files is needed

On Wed, 29 May 2002 02:18:28 GMT, SteveD wrote:

> Gee. I thought this was just the kind of thing that XMLAda was good
> for.
> 
> A few lines of code to read the configuration file (XML) followed by a
> few lines of code to access the data.
> 
> Then if you decide you want to do something more fancy with
> configuration there is little additional cost.

The problems with XML is:

   1) Hard to handedit/read for the user
   2) Have applications depend on XML/Ada for only the config files
      seams bloat.
   3) Would need a DTD for each the config file

Preben