"Norman Vine" wrote: > Martin Spott writes: >> This is a very interesting approach that you present here - and >> probably the only one that doesn't destruct the whole idea of having >> human-adaptable configuration files. In my eyes _dropping_ ASCII XML >> files from the distribution should considered to be a no-go,
> Dropping the ASCII XML files from the distribution is jsut as likely > and no less user friendly then dropping the source code files from > the distribution. I totally disagree. The C/C++ source code is solely for building the executable binaries. For some serious reasons the runtime configuration has been swapped out to an XML framework to enable _everyone_, including Joe Average User to adjust their local copy of FlightGear to their very special 'needs'. The distinct separation of the user-configurable part into a human readable format is one of the major achievements in the development of FlightGear over the past years. Do you really want to turn the clock back ? BTW, as nice as CWXML might be, it adds yet another library dependency to FlightGear - one of the major reason, why the use of Metakit had been abandoned in the past. > Just use the source Luke :-) Yes, I do .... right on the track to figure how much effort it would be to 'port' CWXML to IRIX/MIPSpro. Apparently they rely on having GCC as compiler on _every_ supported Unix platform. Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d