Alan McKinnon wrote:
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.
I'll add this, if devicekit uses xml and doesn't work "out of the box,"
as in me not having to config the thing, then it is no better than hal.
It may be that if I could do xml that I could have gotten hal to work.
Thing is, I can't do xml at the time. I suspect that I am not alone on
this.
So, it is possible that hal was doomed by xml for me at least. If
devicekit uses it, then it may get masked as well. Sounds like
devicekit needs to be really good. I'm sort of hooked on a working
keyboard and a mouse for some reason. Call me silly but they sort of
make the puter work.
Still hoping tho.
Dale
:-) :-)
