On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 03:51:26PM -0500, Jamie Guinan wrote:
> ....
>> If the XML can be kept relativly simple to read and edit then fine but
>> the end user should never have to use a config tool if they don't want
>> to. So please keep it as simple as possle. In my opinion the
>> readability of the config file should be a much bigger concern then
>> having a multitued of configuration programs out there. Even the best
>> config program will have it's limits and I for one don't want to be
>> constrained by them.
> I can see 3 ways this can work out:
>
> 1) The new format is tolerably readable XML, and power users learn
> to see around/through/between the all <>'s.
> 2) An XF86Config-ish format is used, with an XML layer on top that
> some tool boils down to the XF86Config-ish format (I think the
> Red Hat printer config tools do something like this). DRI won't
> be any the wiser.
> 3) The inverse of [2], where the DRI format is XML, and a tool
> to convert from XF86Config-ish syntax to XML is created, just
> to make the power users happy.
Why did you leave out
4) an XF86Config-ish format is used, we use the libx86config library,
(or whatever the name of the lib is :-)
and no XML is involved at all
?
That is the best fit to meeting the requirements of the initial paragraph.
> If you think about it, what *really* matters is the bytes inside DRI.
> The XF86Config syntax is just sugar to make it easy to get the right
> values in there for people handy a text editor. An XML syntax is just
> different kind of sugar which makes it *trivial* to write tools for people
> handy with a mouse. Not to mention facilitating features like preventing
> invalid configurations from being saved, and other stuff that comes
> essentially free with XML.
The "writing tools" bit is handled already, given the existence of
the xf86 config library. So "XML makes it easier to write tools" is an
invalid argument.
Not to mention that "people handy with a mouse", and not code, should not
be writing tools for this stuff in the first place!
And the "preventing invalid configurations" stuff is not "free". As I
understand it, you have to write lengthy XML stuff to set rules, etc, etc.
The argument was previously made, of "Well, we'll keep the XML syntax
simple, so the bloated XML argument wont apply".
I would think writing all the XML rules, and then having all the current
developers have to *learn* all the XML syntax, so they can figure out what
the heck is wrong with what they want to add to the config file, lands back
in the "bloated XML" side.
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftware.com
_______________________________________________
Dri-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
