Well,
you could do an XSL Transform (or several) to get pretty much any XML file into
something that could be WDDX deserialized. Some formats would be easier,
some harder. This works really well when you have a very simple XML
document. What about when you start wanting to read the file with Java
directly, and WDDX isn't helpful at all though? If you made large
sacrifices to allow WDDX to work (as would undoubtedly be the case with a
complex document type), you've pretty much eliminated the benefit of using a
language independant format to begin with.
I'd
rather have a intuitive, concise config file that might mean a little work for
the machine, versus one that's easy for a machine to parse but hard for
me. I'm going to program the machine exactly one time, after that, all I'm
going to do is be editing the file, so that's where the concern should be
(especially for a framework situation). Couple that with the fact that
programming the machine will undoubtedly be ugly any way you cut it (at least
one XSL sheet, perhaps several, or a SAX/DOM parser routine), and the ugliness
of the parsing pretty much becomes a moot point.
I'd
say that's my $0.02, but I think it was probably more than that. Such is
life.
cheers,
barneyb
---
Barney Boisvert, Senior Development
Engineer
AudienceCentral (formerly PIER System,
Inc.)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
voice : 360.671.8708
x12
fax : 360.647.5351
www.audiencecentral.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Davis, Eric
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 12:42 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: [CFCDev] MVCF at benorama.comI knew all that about XML; the .properties file was a new one to me.So, while keeping with the XML format, why not have a schema that would be more readily available to create the variables for you using CFMX's native XML handling?--
Eric C. Davis
Programmer/Analyst I
Georgia Department of Transportation
Office of I.T. Applications
Web Applications Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]-----Original Message-----
From: Barney Boisvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 3:39 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [CFCDev] MVCF at benorama.com.properties files are a standard in the Java world (and tightly bound to the way it handles i18n and l10n) , so using them here makes sense as well, especially if you forsee eventually converting any of your system to Java. For the XML config, WDDX or straight CF might be a little easier up front, but XML provides three big benefits over either approach:1) validation against a DTD/Schema to help you find nasty little bugs in structure in huge config files.2) with a DTD/Schema you have a whole range of editing tools that'll help you edit your config file and make sure you don't screw up.3) a portable format, so anything can read it---
Barney Boisvert, Senior Development Engineer
AudienceCentral (formerly PIER System, Inc.)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
voice : 360.671.8708 x12
fax : 360.647.5351
www.audiencecentral.com-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Todd
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 12:24 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [CFCDev] MVCF at benorama.com
At 03:16 PM 3/25/2003 -0500, "Davis, Eric" wrote:
3) Speaking of the appConfig file, what drives you to use XML for the app config, and the .properties format for the i18n data? Would it not be just as easy, if not easier and faster to simply create structures in cfscript, or even with cf tags?
or even easier, a WDDX packet.
~Todd
