On Tuesday 09 August 2005 06:37 pm, Paul Varner wrote: > 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.
arent 'samba style configs' just glorified ini files ? :) -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
