Hello Paul, ok, you got me on the httpd.conf - kinda mixed it up with tomcats files :)
ad1) I was just asking to consider it ad2) Full ack on that I don't have strong feelings about this - I've already written my parsers for dbmail.conf in php and perl - but I've as well been using XML::Simple in perl which is intended to read even small xml-configs and just liked it for the "sheer lazyness" as Dan would say. anyway let's just stop on xml :) -- Wolfram > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul J Stevens > Sent: Mittwoch, 13. Oktober 2004 09:13 > To: DBMAIL Developers Mailinglist > Subject: Re: [Dbmail-dev] Releasing 2.0? > > Ah Dan, as ever so subtle. I am with you on this one > nonetheless. Dbmail doesn't > need xml at the moment, for two reasons: > > 1) as Dan points out, it ain't broken, and xml formatting the > config won't > actually have much added value. Well, actually the current > config parser stands > to be improved. Inline comments for instance are not handled > nicely. But that is > a really minor issue. > > 2) More importantly however, there is discussion about moving > major parts of the > configuration back into the config table in the/a database. > Personally I think > that this is even whackier than xml for many reasons. The > current filebased > config setup is extremely versatile, and in line with both > user expectations and > unix tradition. Still, if db-based configs is the wave of the > future for dbmail, > much of this discussion will be moot. > > Wolfgang, since you too seem to have some strong feelings > about this issue, > perhaps you could explicate some of the actual real-world > applications an > xml-ified config would have. > > Dan Weber wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 02:23:17AM +0200, Wolfram A. > Kraushaar wrote: > > > >>>Thats just plain retarded. Extra dependencies on something that > >>>is clearly not needed is pointless. > >> > >>So you'd call the apache guys as well "retarded" using xml-style > >>in their httpd.conf, as it wouldn't be needed there either? > > Calling httpd.conf xml-style is really stretching the whole > concept. It just > isn't xml at all. I know many apache projects use xml > configs, but the webserver > isn't one of them. > > >> > > > > Apache has a complex configuration, it needs sgml. Dbmail > does not and it > > would be pointless to implement for the limited context of > our configuration > > files. > > > >>>Especcially since xml doesn't give us any extended > >>>benefit over parsing a simple plain text configuration file. > >> > >>As I already pointed out below: Maybe *you* do not have (or see in > >>the moment) any benefit over this, but for sure developers of > >>third-party applications. > > > > You are full of shit. "If it ain't broke don't fix it" > > > > Dan > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Dbmail-dev mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://twister.fastxs.net/mailman/listinfo/dbmail-dev > > -- > ________________________________________________________________ > Paul Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED] > NET FACILITIES GROUP GPG/PGP: 1024D/11F8CD31 > The Netherlands_______________________________________www.nfg.nl > _______________________________________________ > Dbmail-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://twister.fastxs.net/mailman/listinfo/dbmail-dev
