Re: Use of XML for config files

[Stephen Leake <stephen.a.leake.1@gsfc.nasa.gov>]

Georg Bauhaus <sb463ba@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> writes:

> Stephen Leake <stephen.a.leake.1@gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote:
> : generic
> :   type Private_Type is private;
> :   with function To_String (Item : in Private_Type) return String;
> : procedure Write_Private
> 
> I like this (a lot indeed).
> 
> : Although I gather you are saying you'd be happy if I _only_ had
> : Write_String, without any generics.
> 
> No, no, it's nice to have some flexibility for coping with
> different situations. If there is a notion of standard configuration
> value types, it seems like a good thing to have corresponding standard
> operations.
> Write_Private will add a known way of writing in non-standard
> situations. It's good to have it as part of the API because
> maintainers will likely succeed in finding the responsible
> To_String actual. No per-application names, no guesswork required,
> a documented way at this end.

Ok, I'll put this back in. With a caveat that the string may _not_
have embedded newlines.

> : I'd like to have one standard file format. You can always add a child
> : package to implement a non-standard format. I wouldn't mind moving
> : enough of the body into the private part of the spec to make that
> : easier. 
> 
> Which parts? AFAICS now, this won't be necessary, at least
> in the case of DOM.  For example, most of the tree related
> functions are already available.

Oh, yes. In the XML version, that's true. But in the Java properties
version, it isn't. So I'd be willing to make the "tree related"
functions visible in the Java version.

> : Well, if you have a "validating XML editor" sitting around, that
> : would make things easy. I didn't think such things existed.
> 
> Various. (Actually, (require 'psgml) mode for Emacs (and then turning on
> xml-mode) is a good start, but of course this is an option for Emacs
> users only.)

Hmm. Ok. That makes XML more acceptable. Sigh :).

-- 
-- Stephe