On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 22:19 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > | but I think having the xml configuration files allows a much more > | robust configuration. > > How so? Using XML doesn't magically make your data files any different. > It simply makes them much harder to parse.
That's a matter of opinion. I see it as a way to abstract away the configuration and utilize an existing library to handle the parsing. If we do want to eliminate outside dependencies (which I think is an extremely valid point and concern), then we could internally implement a different configuration format that is easier to parse. I'd probably go for something similar to the samba/gdm config files if we were to go down this road: selection.conf: [global] default_chost = i686-pc-linux-gnu [i686-pc-linux-gnu] version=i686-pc-linux-gnu-3.4.4 profile=vanilla i686-pc-linux-gnu-3.4.4.conf: [global] version=i686-pc-linux-gnu-3.4.4 bindir=/usr/i686-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/3.4.4 manpath=blah infopath=blah [vanilla] ldpath=blah spec=blah [hardened] ... So what do people think of these two options? --Jeremy
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
