Yes, I also think that a GUI (HTML based?) tool to manipulate that XML is the missing link to have everybody happy. And XSLT can help a lot on the implementation of such GUI... if HTML based.
I also think it is quite difficult to beat XML in representing complex structures. It is the only text based format I know that has no problems with deeply nested structures. And even using a text editor, you usualy do not have to write everything. Usualy it is a copy/paste/edit oriented task. I guess it is a bit like beer: you take sometime to get use to it before it becomes your favorite thing. If you do not like beer, chances are that: 1. You did not try enough; 2. There is no good beer where yo live. So... take care of producing good XML an trying it enough. Have fun, Paulo Gaspar > -----Original Message----- > From: James Todd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 05:01 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: !oh yeah! > > > > yep. you basically can't beat descriptive data and as such > folks will be able to get up'n running in short order (eg > config'ing a web server) or will be able to extend and layer > in new features (eg tools, etc) as well. beats the heck out > of cryptic config files anyday. > > if the verbosity is an issue (not in my book) one could > conceivably come up with an xslt transformation allowing > one to deal with a hell-a-obfuscated "<a><b/></a>" type > beast ... if one so chooses. > > i'm a bit biased with regards to server.xml (i wrote the first > rev back in the day) and with that said i'm impressed with > what folks have done with it. intuitive, clean, nothing but > goodness all around. > > - james > > "Timm, Sean" wrote: > > > Get the format right, and the tools will follow. I think XML > was a great > > choice. No one ever said you'd have to manually type the thing forever. > > > > - Sean T. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: James Sieben (EUS) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, June 30, 2000 12:09 PM > > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > > Subject: RE: !oh yeah! > > > > You like server.xml? > > > > ugh. I wish they had stuck with some simple format for the > thing, like the > > apache configuration. > > > > IMO it's a step backwards in server configuration for UNIX (not to be > > compared with the great leap backward that is Win32, and the total > > forece-feeding of GUI configuration.) Typing all that > > <servetcontext><servelet></servlet></servletcontext> just takes forever. > > > > Anyways that's my rant. >
