On Monday 18 January 2010 18:26:21 Mike Edenfield wrote: > > +1 I do OK with plain text but no clue on the new xml stuff. Why not > > just keep it simple? Is xml REALLY needed? > > XML allows you to generate complex, structured, hierarchical data that > can be read, changed, and stored by well-tested third party libraries > that don't need to know anything about the contents or meaning of your > configuration data beforehand. This means I, as a developer, don't need > to write any code to read and parse configurations, validate the syntax > or structure (only the content), or persist it back out. > > In simpler terms: less time spent on the configuration parser, more time > spent being productive.
Just as code is read many more times than it is written, so is a package configured by the end user many more times than the config parser studied by the developer. Your post makes sense until you realise that the use of XML in a configuration designed to be changed by the user renders the package virtually unusable. Given a choice between me as a developer struggling with a config parser versus vast swathes of users dumping the package because of the same parser, I'd say it's me that has to work harder, not my users. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
