On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 11:18:43PM +0100, Felix Kühling wrote:
> If anyone has serious objections to XML, please let us know (mail to
> dri-devel will suffice ;-).
I object. Using xml inevitably leads to files that are completely
human-unreadable, except perhaps to the original developers.
Please
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 03:19:22PM -0800, Philip Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 11:18:43PM +0100, Felix K?hling wrote:
> > If anyone has serious objections to XML, please let us know (mail to
> > dri-devel will suffice ;-).
>
> I object. Using xml inevitably leads to files that are complet
I think you misunderstand. We aren't replacing the XF86Config file here.
This is for DRI specific driver settings with capabilities extending to
having special options for individual programs if need be.
Now if I am mistaken and you did understand ...
Your argument is bogus. You can't cla
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 06:04:19PM -0600, D. Hageman wrote:
>
> I think you misunderstand. We aren't replacing the XF86Config file here.
> This is for DRI specific driver settings with capabilities extending to
> having special options for individual programs if need be.
>
> Now if I am mis
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Philip Brown wrote:
> > Your argument is bogus. You can't claim that every XML file format leads
> > to unreadable files. Now, if you have a good *technical* reasons why we
> > shouldn't use XML - I would love to hear them.
>
> Looks like you dont understand.
>
> "tech
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 07:22:33AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> Another disadvantage is that parsing is so damn slow.
Yeah, tell me about it.
The place where I work had to buy some auxiliary processing boxes to
augment the webservers. Black box "appliance" like things.
SSL processing engines?
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Arkadi Shishlov wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 03:19:22PM -0800, Philip Brown wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 11:18:43PM +0100, Felix K?hling wrote:
> > > If anyone has serious objections to XML, please let us know (mail to
> > > dri-devel will suffice ;-).
> >
> > I obj
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 10:37:06PM -0600, D. Hageman wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Philip Brown wrote:
> > If you want to get experience/resume padding doing XML coding, please do it
> > elsewhere.
>
> Please don't make this a personal attack. Public forums are not an
> appropriate place for suc
Philip Brown wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 11:18:43PM +0100, Felix Kühling wrote:
If anyone has serious objections to XML, please let us know (mail to
dri-devel will suffice ;-).
I object. Using xml inevitably leads to files that are completely
human-unreadable, except perhaps to the origina
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 06:04:19PM -0600, D. Hageman wrote:
>
> I think you misunderstand. We aren't replacing the XF86Config file here.
> This is for DRI specific driver settings with capabilities extending to
> having special options for individual programs if need be.
>
> Now if I am mis
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Philip Brown wrote:
>
> I am trying to point out that none of
>
> "XML is cool",
> "XML is a hot trend right now"
> "I havent had as much XML experience as I'd like"
>
> are valid reasons for selecting XML as the basis for a file format.
I concur completely and I don't t
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 22:37:06 -0600 (CST)
"D. Hageman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > C code can be edited with any text editor, too. But the percentage
> > of DRI users that can usefully DO that, is a very small number,
> > comparative to the overall number of users.
>
> Hence the GUI ... I think
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 02:55:22 -0600 (CST)
"D. Hageman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > So what are the "technical" advantages of XML in this case?
>
> Quick List --
>
> *) Text Based - easy to edit.
Text based does NOT imply easy to edit. look at USBsnopys' output. its
completely illegible.
>
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 01:25:48 -0600 (CST)
"D. Hageman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> what alternative do you propose that would be faster? Are we talking
> seconds, minutes, hours ... what?
On some systems, every nanosecond counts.
---
This SF
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 02:05:34 +0200
"Arkadi Shishlov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is also possible to rebuild XML parser in some binary
> incompatible way..
or find someone compiled their own broken one.
---
This SF.NET email is sponsored b
> *) Text Based - easy to edit.
>
> Text based does NOT imply easy to edit. look at USBsnopys' output. its
> completely illegible.
XML printed sensibly is ok for human editing (not ideal). Users dont
edit config files however they use apps to do this.
> > *) Well known basic format (think each t
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 10:41:20PM -0600, D. Hageman wrote:
> Those are some excellent examples of abuse. It doesn't have to be like
> that.
[..]
> If we went with libxml2 it has no exterior dependencies that I am aware.
Probably I was harsh when I said no to XML. Using libxml is good from
c
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 06:04:19PM -0600, D. Hageman wrote:
> >
> > I think you misunderstand. We aren't replacing the XF86Config file here.
> > This is for DRI specific driver settings with capabilities extending to
> > having special options for ind
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Philip Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 07:22:33AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> >
> > Another disadvantage is that parsing is so damn slow.
>
> Yeah, tell me about it.
>
> The place where I work had to buy some auxiliary processing boxes to
> augment the webservers. Bl
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 10:37:03AM +, Ian Molton wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 02:55:22 -0600 (CST)
> "D. Hageman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > > So what are the "technical" advantages of XML in this case?
> >
> > Quick List --
> >
> > *) Text Based - easy to edit.
>
> Text based do
Philip Brown wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 06:04:19PM -0600, D. Hageman wrote:
Your argument is bogus. You can't claim that every XML file format leads
to unreadable files. Now, if you have a good *technical* reasons why we
shouldn't use XML - I would love to hear them.
Looks like you d
Philip Brown wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 10:37:06PM -0600, D. Hageman wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Philip Brown wrote:
Preferably in an area that XML was designed for: in exchanging
data between programs and OTHER programs, not between humans and programs.
Simplify: GUI configuration tool
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 01:22:55AM -0600, D. Hageman wrote:
> ...
> 2) The XF86Config file format does what it does very well. It isn't
> necessarily what we are looking for. It also isn't exactly a library that
> one can just use. It is a very custom built parser for a very specific
> purpos
Ian Molton wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 02:55:22 -0600 (CST)
"D. Hageman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
*) Every major programming language has some library to handle XML
(say if you hacked togther a library that does the XF86Config file
format ... this wouldn't be the case).
Irrelevant in thi
Damien Miller wrote:
Philip Brown wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 11:18:43PM +0100, Felix Kühling wrote:
If anyone has serious objections to XML, please let us know (mail to
dri-devel will suffice ;-).
I object. Using xml inevitably leads to files that are completely
human-unreadable, except
essential.
Vlad Stamate
www.powervr.com
-Original Message-
From: Ian Romanick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 28 January 2003 16:19
To: DRI developer's list
Subject: Re: [Dri-devel] Configuration file format survey
Damien Miller wrote:
> Philip Brown wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan
I'm not a developer and I know nothing about XML and so have no real
opinion as to what the file format should be. I am however woried about
comments like the ones quoted below. The notion that users dont edit
config files by hand may be all fine and good in the microsoft world but
last time I
> [...] The notion that users dont edit
> config files by hand may be all fine and good in the microsoft world but
> last time I checked I was using linux. You can't make the same
> assumptions about what users want to do as you can in the microsoft
> world.
I'd like to add _strong_ support to
Vlad Stamate wrote:
When we did the powervr.ini file structure we ported code from our Win32
drivers which used the same file structure. But Win32 offers an API to
read/write those kind of files, while for the Linux driver we had to rewrite
it from scratch. (not fun always :). But it satisfied our
Stamate.
www.powervr.com
-Original Message-
From: Ian Romanick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 28 January 2003 17:22
To: DRI developer's list
Subject: Re: [Dri-devel] Configuration file format survey
Vlad Stamate wrote:
> When we did the powervr.ini file structure we ported code
D. Hageman wrote:
> Hence the GUI ...
GUI...
> Seriously, if you a technical reason why ... I would love to hear it.
Technical reason? XML is Bad By Nature, what reason do you expect? :)
Never heard such a lame thing as using a GUI (who needs that) to edit
XML (who needs that) ...
(pls don't ans
Am Dienstag, 28. Januar 2003 08:22 schrieb D. Hageman:
> On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Philip Brown wrote:
> > I am trying to point out that none of
[-]
> > On the other hand,
> > "DRI is meant to integrate with XFree86. XFree86 has a standard
> > configuration file format. We should follow the
> > '
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Dieter Nützel wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 28. Januar 2003 08:22 schrieb D. Hageman:
> > On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Philip Brown wrote:
> > > I am trying to point out that none of
>
> [-]
>
> > > On the other hand,
> > > "DRI is meant to integrate with XFree86. XFree86 has a standard
>
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Steven Paul Lilly wrote:
> I'm not a developer and I know nothing about XML and so have no real
> opinion as to what the file format should be. I am however woried about
> comments like the ones quoted below. The notion that users dont edit
> config files by hand may be al
Jamie Guinan wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Steven Paul Lilly wrote:
I'm not a developer and I know nothing about XML and so have no real
opinion as to what the file format should be. I am however woried about
comments like the ones quoted below. The notion that users dont edit
config files b
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 07:59:47 -0800
Ian Romanick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Having the format be easilly extensible is relevent to us
extensible by the programmers yes. I see no need to use XML for that
though.
---
This SF.NET email is spo
Hi
Just one little XFree-related pro-XML story. Not from DRI, from XKB
life. You know, XKB configuration is generally held in
/usr/X11R6/lib/xkb directory and several subdirectories. All this would
be fine if the format of the files in these directories would be
something good, structured, readabl
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
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 01:25:48AM -0600, D. Hageman wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 06:04:19PM -0600, D. Hageman wrote:
> > >
> > > I think you misunderstand. We aren't replacing the XF86Config file here.
> > > This is for DRI specific driver set
On Tue, 2003-01-28 at 12:00, Sven Luther wrote:
> Just my experience for when file-roller (part of gnome) upgrades its
> configuration, it takes minutes on a Atlhon 1700+, but i admit, the
> configuration file-roller manages are, if not big, at least there are
> many of them.
Thats something else.
Ian,
Comments are inline below and I have also included a couple of one line
responses you posted to the list. I like to keep the traffic on the list
as reasonable as possible so that is why I am not replying to them
individually.
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Ian Molton wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2003
Philip Brown wrote:
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 f
> > 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 peop
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 09:56:09PM +, Sergey V. Oudaltsov wrote:
> Hi
>
> Just one little XFree-related pro-XML story. Not from DRI, from XKB
> life. You know, XKB configuration is generally held in
> /usr/X11R6/lib/xkb directory and several subdirectories. All this would
> be fine if the form
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Philip Brown wrote:
> > 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
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Ian Romanick wrote:
> The thing that makes XML worse is that it gives people an extra degree
> of freedom. This amounts to giving people more rope with which to shoot
> themselves in the foot.
LOL.
/me holds rope
/me looks at foot
/me scratches head
--
Leif Delgass
http:
> Good story. But right there, you point out the main difference between your
> example, and the XFree86 config format.
Keep in mind - it is not XF68Config, it is just configuration
repository. The tree of available modeuls/layouts/variants/options. Not
actually chosen one (which is still in XF86C
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Ian Romanick wrote:
> As far as caching goes, I guess I don't understand. Does that mean that
> if someone changes settings while an OpenGL application is running, the
> changes will take effect in the running app? Will it only take effect
> if the app creates a new renderin
48 matches
Mail list logo
