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 14:20:24 -0400
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (skates.gsfc.nasa.gov)
Message-ID: <u8z5bw2on.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>
References: <uwuswy0qr.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>
 <4519e058.0206190708.2ef205e4@posting.google.com>
 <3D10AF1F.3000805@attbi.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 1024511289 12195 128.183.220.71 (19 Jun 2002
 18:28:09 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.gsfc.nasa.gov
NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Jun 2002 18:28:09 GMT
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:26416
Date: 2002-06-19T18:28:09+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Robert I. Eachus" <rieachus@attbi.com> writes:

> Ted Dennison wrote:
> 
>  
> > So really a better question right now would be to ask if anyone has
> > any big objections to any of the approaches presented (other than XML,
> > to which the objections are already well recorded). Also, does anyone
> > have any strong reasons why they think one is much better than the
> > others?
> 
> 
> 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. 

Well, I posted those a couple weeks ago, so I thought we did that. It
did not stimulate much discussion of the specific requirements or
package spec; all of the discussion was on the file format.

> If the result favors one or the other file format, so be it. 

It certainly went against XML. The choice among the other three is
less clear.

Do you find the rationale I've posted at
http://users.erols.com/leakstan/Stephe/Ada/Config_Files/config_files.html
to be insufficient? What's missing?

> My expectation is that a good set of requirements and interface will
> allow more than one underlying implementation. 

Yes. But we agreed at the very start that a standard file format was
required.

> 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.

Ok, but that's explicitly outside the scope of the Config_Files
project.

-- 
-- Stephe