On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 18:14 -0400, Daniel Ostrow wrote: > On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 15:12 -0700, Jeremy Huddleston wrote: > > 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: > > <snip> > > I've always been a fan of samba style config files..unlike xml they tend > to be both easy to parse and are human readable. I'd far rather see this > over XML. It's especially attractive as this is also the way that > portage is moving (at the moment) as well.
<AOL> me too </AOL> I highly prefer the samba style config file over an XML file. It is easy to read, parse, and edit by both human and machine. Regards, Paul -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
