From: <ju...@pr...> - 2007-02-25 07:44:24
|
I'm extremely underwhelmed with Apache style configuration files that = appear to be loosely based on XML but quite clearly are not valid XML.=20 I expect, (but don't know the history) that Apache steered clear of = requiring valid XML because it would require some compromise to = human-readability of the raw file. (because you can't rely on = preservation of whitespace/formatting)=20 Also - when the Apache team chose their format - I guess XML processing = tools & libraries weren't anywhere near as mature and widespread as they = are today. You could have both valid XML and maintain some human readability by = (where practical) using subnodes for attributes instead of having extremely long lists of attributes on any particular = node. e.g=20 <somesection> <parameter>value</parameter> <parameter2>value</parameter2> ... </somesection>=20 Requiring the entire file to be proper XML would provide benefits as far = as responsibility-partitioning, extensibility, and flexibility in the = use of configuration tools. If there is general agreement that this is a good direction to head, = then getting this sorted out early on will help in terms of providing a = better ability to configure modules independently of each other and of = the main config settings. e. g A chunk of XML (or its DOM representation) could be more easily = passed off to the relevant module to handle it's own initialization. I'd love to see 'configuration file format' as one of the first items = for discussion regarding Yaws 2.0 - as clearly the decision on which way = to go with this (if at all) could affect most other code development & = tidy-ups. Julian Noble |
From: Cows <Co...@2u...> - 2007-04-11 15:10:03
|
Mel Gibson Spanking! http://Mel-Gibson-spanking.info/WindowsMediaPlayer.php?movie=231891 _________________________________________________________ Post sent from http://www.trapexit.org |
From: Claes W. <kl...@ta...> - 2007-02-25 13:31:16
|
ju...@pr... wrote: > I'm extremely underwhelmed with Apache style configuration files that > appear to be loosely based on XML but quite clearly are not valid XML. > I completely agree, config file should be proper XML -klacke |
From: Stefan S. <st...@no...> - 2007-04-24 06:24:41
|
Claes Wikstrom <kl...@ta...> wrote: > ju...@pr... wrote: >> I'm extremely underwhelmed with Apache style configuration files that >> appear to be loosely based on XML but quite clearly are not valid XML. > > I completely agree, config file should be proper XML I disagree, unless the config file is written by a tool. In the Unix world most config files are edited with a text editor. XML is messy. Reading XML is OK when you want to debug some XML based protocol, but for config files it's a bad choice. ejabberd uses Erlang terms, which is also a bad choice, because the target groups aren't Erlang programmers. For yaws this could be OK. Or maybe something like the INI files from the Windows world. -- Web (en): http://www.no-spoon.de/ -*- Web (de): http://www.frell.de/ |
From: <kl...@ta...> - 2007-04-24 07:01:04
|
Stefan Scholl wrote: > Claes Wikstrom <kl...@ta...> wrote: >> ju...@pr... wrote: >>> I'm extremely underwhelmed with Apache style configuration files that >>> appear to be loosely based on XML but quite clearly are not valid XML. >> I completely agree, config file should be proper XML > > I disagree, unless the config file is written by a tool. In the > Unix world most config files are edited with a text editor. XML > is messy. And I've changed my mind. Maybe the current '<' '>' syntax is ugly, but making it proper XML doesn't make it less ugly. Anyway, as I said, I've changed my mind. There are no right answers here - just opinions. /klacke -- Claes Wikstrom -- Caps lock is nowhere and http://www.tail-f.com -- everything is under control cellphone: +46 70 2097763 |
From: Jouni <Jou...@fm...> - 2007-04-24 07:16:38
|
How about a small config file validator/filter application, that can read, write and convert different config formats. I would prefer to edit unix style config file personally, but getting the config syntax correct before really launching the application would be nice. If XML style definitions are needed, the tool good spit it out. And vice versa. AND it could also spit out a nice HTML sheet, defining the current configuration, maybe even a form for those without a text editor ... or a template for gnome config or ... whatever makes each distribution happy. Jouni On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 09:01 +0200, Claes Wikström wrote: > Stefan Scholl wrote: > > Claes Wikstrom <kl...@ta...> wrote: > >> ju...@pr... wrote: > >>> I'm extremely underwhelmed with Apache style configuration files that > >>> appear to be loosely based on XML but quite clearly are not valid XML. > >> I completely agree, config file should be proper XML > > > > I disagree, unless the config file is written by a tool. In the > > Unix world most config files are edited with a text editor. XML > > is messy. > > And I've changed my mind. Maybe the current '<' '>' syntax is > ugly, but making it proper XML doesn't make it less ugly. > Anyway, as I said, I've changed my mind. > > There are no right answers here - just opinions. > > /klacke > -- Jouni Rynö mailto://Jou...@fm.../ http://www.geo.fmi.fi/~ryno/ Finnish Meteorological Institute http://www.fmi.fi/ Space Research http://www.geo.fmi.fi/ P.O.BOX 503 Tel (+358)-9-19294656 FIN-00101 Helsinki FAX (+358)-9-19294603 Finland priv-GSM (+358)-50-5302903 "It's just zeros and ones, it cannot be hard" |
From: Toby T. <to...@sm...> - 2007-04-24 11:46:41
|
On 24-Apr-07, at 3:24 AM, Stefan Scholl wrote: > Claes Wikstrom <kl...@ta...> wrote: >> ju...@pr... wrote: >>> I'm extremely underwhelmed with Apache style configuration files >>> that >>> appear to be loosely based on XML but quite clearly are not valid >>> XML. >> >> I completely agree, config file should be proper XML > > I disagree, unless the config file is written by a tool. In the > Unix world most config files are edited with a text editor. XML > is messy. > > Reading XML is OK when you want to debug some XML based protocol, > but for config files it's a bad choice. Agree, if said files are to be written by humans. > > > ejabberd uses Erlang terms, which is also a bad choice, because > the target groups aren't Erlang programmers. For yaws this could > be OK. Or maybe something like the INI files from the Windows > world. Apache's syntax is already far more expressive than INI. --Toby > > > -- > Web (en): http://www.no-spoon.de/ -*- Web (de): http://www.frell.de/ > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express > Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take > control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. > http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ > _______________________________________________ > Erlyaws-list mailing list > Erl...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/erlyaws-list |
From: Ben H. <0x6...@gm...> - 2007-04-26 06:55:55
|
What about YAML? |
From: Bob I. <bo...@re...> - 2007-04-26 08:56:50
|
That's a pretty bad idea. Writing a YAML parser is non-trivial, and the syntax isn't really good enough to bother with all of that hassle. It really only has measurable traction in the Ruby and Perl communities. Really, how many Yaws users do all of their configuration in text files anyway? I would imagine most people using Yaws are probably doing it with an embedded style of application. On 4/25/07, Ben Hood <0x6...@gm...> wrote: > What about YAML? > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express > Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take > control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. > http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ > _______________________________________________ > Erlyaws-list mailing list > Erl...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/erlyaws-list > |