On 10/28/05, Patrick McElhaney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I must jump to Joseph's defense here. I think ColdFusion framework > developers became infatuated with XML a few years ago -- starting with > XML fusedocs -- and it's gotten out of hand.
Sure, let's ignore all the benefits that going the XML route provides. It's just a fad. > I don't understand what was wrong with simpler text-based formats, > such as the java properties file and windows ini file. I thought that > a config file should only specify details; it should not implement > business logic. And I thought that's why config file formats tended to > be so constrained. The idea of an eXtensible format for config files > seems backwards to me. If we were dealing with simple properties files I'd agree with you, but we're not. In the case of Mach-II the XML file is a controller file (as it is with numerous other frameworks even outside the CF world), it isn't just simple name/value pairs, and using XML is perfect for this purpose. Now you may disagree with using XML for this purpose but I'd have to hear a better argument than "it's wrong" or "it's gotten out of hand" to understand what you think the DOWNside is to using XML in this way. -- Matt Woodward [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.mattwoodward.com ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' as the subject of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by CFXHosting (www.cfxhosting.com). CFCDev is supported by New Atlanta, makers of BlueDragon http://www.newatlanta.com/products/bluedragon/index.cfm An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
