Re: Using XML to handle all configuration files
> I think that XML config format would be cool for 2 (main) reasons:
>
> 1: A consistent file structure is easier to learn and remember
> when trying to configure a new package / program. The XML itself can
> even be used as documentation for the format (reference-style doc, not
> tutorial-style).
>
> 2: The program writers can eliminate (nearly) all of their config
> file parsing and error handling -- the XML parser will do that instead
> (especially if it is a validating parser).
Slow down! =)
We are not talking about replacing the traditional formats that packages
use, it's well beyond our competence to persue such a goal.
The idea is just to have just *one* database, not a replicated one that
debconf uses. And the solution to the multiple format program is using XML
as an *intermediate* data model for configuration data.
> Oh? Who's afraid of XML? Maybe they think that they will have to
> write all the parsing code themselves? I've tried the DOM and SAX
> parser for Python myself (wrappers around expat I believe). Very
> simple indeed!
People who don't know it and are automatically afraid of media-hyped
things. They are probably that the ones proposing these technologies
sucumbed to this hype.
> Have you looked at GConf? It is a new part of the gnome environment.
> I don't know too much about the details of it, but from what I
> understand it is supposed to be a universal configuration manager. It
> might resemble the M$ Windows registry. I definitely don't want a
> mess like the windows registry, but a simple and consistent config
> mechanism is a must.
I don't think we should aim to a registry. This is UNIX and people expect
to be able to edit configuration files, and they expect the system to use
those changes and maintain them. So, the idea is to create a "virtual data
configuration space" (!), built by using XML converters and deconverters for
each file format.
Reply to: