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: 2002-06-09 15:00:24 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newsfeed-west.nntpserver.com!hub1.meganetnews.com!nntpserver.com!news-xfer2.newshosting.com!nntp2.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Sender: Stephe@TAKVER Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Use of XML for config files References: <3CFC5DB2.A21DCF61@cs.tu-berlin.de> <4519e058.0206041129.5b250124@posting.google.com> From: Stephen Leake Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 17:00:06 CDT Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv3-2e9PTNiiUbYnjrv+ADo8iIw7eMOWACepSRkC9gXzH+QLsv2mmg9qcjH8DqXvyV3PMuGwcIdlO3aBodI!kZbDdMYyjhO3eVPOT3QG0E3svJWSkeX8678sY0CkWqY= X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.com X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 22:00:06 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:25632 Date: 2002-06-09T22:00:06+00:00 List-Id: dennison@telepath.com (Ted Dennison) writes: > Volkert Barr wrote in message > news:<3CFC5DB2.A21DCF61@cs.tu-berlin.de>... > > > the Configuration Packages! If there is a consensus that XML is needed, > > the Spitbowl Package must be ported! > > I don't think this would be nessecary or a good idea. Making our own > Configuration XML parser is not out of the question. Parsing any XML > language that anyone could ever come up with is a very different task > than parsing a specific XML language. Making an XML parser customised > to the configuration XML language (whatever that would end up being) > may be more work than using ACT's XML reader, but it wouldn't be an > undoable effort. Yes. > We really only need to make the package *spec*s portable Ada. It > would be nice to have a portable reference implementation too, but > its not an absolute nessecity to have one, as long as its *possible* > to make one. Exactly. > However, I agree with you that its probably more work than the task > requires. I think it would be silly to use XML, unless we are > getting something out of it that we can't easily get out of other > grammars. PR is *not* a sufficient answer. :-) Yes. However, I think the potential for an application to "grow" the config file beyond the Config_File API, and use a "full" XML parser instead, is a Good Thing. Clients with installed config files would not need to change them when the app is upgraded. > What that means is that if we were to use XML, we should support > both user-defined configuration item attributes Just because XML supports this, doesn't mean the Config_File API should. We're looking for a simple subset. If the app decides it needs these, it can go to a full XML parser. > and some kind of object nesting (configuration items defined within > other configuration items). Actually, the "multiple levels" is precisely the same as nested objects. That is: foo.bar.item_1 foo.bar.item_2 foo.figs.item_1 is the same as: object foo object bar item_1 item_2 end object object figs item_1 end object end object Hope that's clear :). > I haven't really heard anyone seriously arguing the usefulness of > this stuff. We all have :). > If we are to stick with simple attribute-value pairs, then XML would > be major overkill. In what way? I have a very small package that parses the subset of XML that I need to meet the Config_File spec (Glib.XML - 671 lines in the body). What's wrong with that? -- -- Stephe