|
From: Nicholas N. <n.n...@gm...> - 2009-08-15 11:52:19
|
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Ashley Pittman<as...@pi...> wrote:
>
> Did you have any thoughts on the other points I mentioned, either
> getting both sets of output and ideally a way of getting a qualifier in
> over the --{log,file}-socket options.
I don't know much about the qualifier issue. As for both sets of
output, it's conceptually nice but does it have a practical use? (I
think it would invalidate Julian's use case of looking in the non-XML
text output to look for critical errors.) Having said that, the
message printing code currently is ugly, there's lots of ad hoc tests
all over the place to decide whether to print each message as text or
XML or both, it would be great to have a simpler and more consistent
story for all that.
I very much like the idea of testing the XML by converting it back to
text and comparing with the text output, but it would be too much to
do it for every regtest, I think. Is there a simple GPL-licensed XML
parser that could be the starting point for this, preferably in C or
Perl? Presumably.
Nick
|