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 09:43:33 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!skates!not-for-mail From: Stephen Leake Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Use of XML for config files Date: 13 Jun 2002 12:36:18 -0400 Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (skates.gsfc.nasa.gov) Message-ID: References: <3CFC5DB2.A21DCF61@cs.tu-berlin.de> <4519e058.0206041129.5b250124@posting.google.com> <4519e058.0206100702.5a4b431a@posting.google.com> <3D0769F7.68F5BD9C@san.rr.com> <4519e058.0206130618.2ef74ee8@posting.google.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 1023986617 19613 128.183.220.71 (13 Jun 2002 16:43:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.gsfc.nasa.gov NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 Jun 2002 16:43:37 GMT User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:25888 Date: 2002-06-13T16:43:37+00:00 List-Id: dennison@telepath.com (Ted Dennison) writes: > 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. Yeah. I'll implement a Java properties style file format next, to get a clear understanding of the trade off. > > 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 beginning to agree with you. Requiring users to type & is too much. > 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. That is a choice, but then there isn't much difference from a 'real' registry. > > 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. Well, you have to use the _right_ buzzwords :). I was excited to be on the bandwagon for once; sometimes I get tired of swimming upstream all the time :(. -- -- Stephe