Re: Config_Files proposal

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

To stick my head into a debate that I probably should stay out of:

Stephan said:

>But I still think the right answer in this case is one of:
>
>"use a better (multi-document) text editor".
>
>"use the registry for resources shared by multiple processes".
>
>"use separate config files for separate instances of applications"


I think these are silly. I've always been dubious of this package, and
if this is the result, then there is no reason to bother, because it
would be totally useless.

Let's look at each of these "solutions"

>"use a better (multi-document) text editor".

This doesn't have any effect on the problem. On modern (multi-tasking)
systems, it is possible to run multiple copies of a program. If that
happens, you still have the problem. For instance, you can run multiple
copies of Word, even though there is no NEED to do so. And, as someone
pointed out, users won't read the manual about that anyway. If you
believe in solid applications (and if you don't, why are you using
Ada?), "user beware" is not an option.

>"use separate config files for separate instances of applications"

This doesn't seem to be much of a solution, either. You're requiring the
user to specify the "separate" file in some way. (You could use a PID or
the like for this, but then it hardly is a config file, as it would be
different for every invokation). Since this is likely to be a pain,
you'll have a default. And then you'll be back to the first situation,
because users won't read the manual, and they'll run multiple copies

>"use the registry for resources shared by multiple processes".

This of course works, but now you've lost the portability. Moreover,
since I don't believe that any carefully written apps could ever assume
single access, the Config_Files package could never be used. So why
bother to define it?

Summary: Requirement 1 has to go. For this package to be useful, it has
to make it easy to create bullet-proof configuration files, and more
portably than relying on the registry. (If you just want to use the
registry, use Claw.Registry, which is plenty portable on Windows.) Yes,
this is a lot of work. But if this was easy, there wouldn't be any need
for the package. (Just writing a value to a file hardly requires a fancy
package.)

                Randy Brukardt.