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: 103376,80b3e504140e89fd
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-19 11:33:29 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!skates!not-for-mail
From: Stephen Leake <stephen.a.leake.1@gsfc.nasa.gov>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Config_Files proposal
Date: 19 Jun 2002 14:22:38 -0400
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (skates.gsfc.nasa.gov)
Message-ID: <u4rfzw2kx.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>
References: <uwuswy0qr.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>
 <4519e058.0206190708.2ef205e4@posting.google.com>
 <3D10AF1F.3000805@attbi.com> <3D10B728.BD5E08C3@san.rr.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: anarres.gsfc.nasa.gov
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: skates.gsfc.nasa.gov 1024511423 12195 128.183.220.71 (19 Jun 2002
 18:30:23 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.gsfc.nasa.gov
NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Jun 2002 18:30:23 GMT
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:26417
Date: 2002-06-19T18:30:23+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Darren New <dnew@san.rr.com> writes:

> "Robert I. Eachus" wrote:
> > Yes.  But the problem is not with the various file formats, it is with
> > the approach.  At this point we should be debating a set of requirements
> > and a strawman interface package specification.  If the result favors
> > one or the other file format, so be it.
> 
> Seconded! That's what I've been saying. Work out an API first, and the file
> format will pretty much either fall out of it or be arbitrary where it
> doesn't.

Since we keep saying the API _must_ be independent of the file format,
I don't see how finishing the API can help decide what file format to
use.

Note that Robert said "requirements and package spec", not just
"package spec".

> >  My expectation is that a good set of requirements and interface
> > will allow more than one underlying implementation. I'd love to
> > see a result that maps to registry, .ini files, and .cfg files
> > with no differences in usage outside the create and/or open
> > parameters.
> 
> Seconded again.

Well, I thought we did that. Do I need to wait longer than "a couple
weeks"? 

-- 
-- Stephe