On 30/09/2014 6:28 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 30/09/14 00:48, Chris Johns wrote:
On 30/09/2014 3:26 am, Peter Dufault wrote:
On Sep 29, 2014, at 02:15 , Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org> wrote:
I can add the scripts to INI file format. I feel XML is too heavy a
requirement for parsing. There is a single C++ file that does it and
Python handles the format easily. I also think it is easier to read.
Yes, INI is easier to read but XML is ubiquitous and easier to sell.
I use
tinyXML2. TinyXML2 has been complete enough for me, and the
footprint is
small enough for me even on my target devices. On the embedded
PowerPC MPC5554:
I am happy to have XML added to the report formats produced by the
RSB. I still
think INI is an easier format to handle and what we should embed in
the RTEMS
source tree. The data is not that complex. If this is an issue maybe
INI and
XML can be embedded.
The problem with INI is that it is a flat format. In XML you directly
see the hierarchy (like in your plain text output, here you use
indentation).
There is no argument from me about which is a better overall format.
With an XML library the parsing of XML files is easy.
I have played with a number of XML parsers and found all sorts of issues
in dark corners. I am happy to see it supported and I am also happy to
see INI files supported.
Is all the report stuff in "source-builder/sb/reports.py"?
Yes.
Chris
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
