Andre Malo wrote: > > Eli Marmor wrote: > > > 7. Elegance. > > I tend to disagree. > > XML configuration is not elegant. Especially when you need to start quoting > shell stuff and regexps for XML. > XML configs are huge. This will blow up a typical 8k configuration file at > least to 32k or more. > XML is slow and less powerful compared to the current system. > > Anyway, I'm willing to get convinced when I see a new configuration system > which (a) maps the current behaviour and complexities (b) does more than > that and (c) make configuration of the httpd on a server system (no gui!) > easier. Otherwise it's wasted time. > > Good luck!
I agree, and the word "elegance" (like all the other benefits that I listed") was not written about XML, but about the idea to make the config bi-diretional, stored in a central tree accessible to the core too, with a syntax/format defined in a standard way (independent on specific module procedures to parse "RAW_ARGS"...), and re-using any possible data, including the XML DOC definitions of the directives. However, you have no choice but choosing a bi-directional format. XML is bad, but common. I prefer other formats (such as the X Resources format), but XML is what everybody and his dog uses these days... Thanks! -- Eli Marmor [EMAIL PROTECTED] CTO, Founder Netmask (El-Mar) Internet Technologies Ltd. __________________________________________________________ Tel.: +972-9-766-1020 8 Yad-Harutzim St. Fax.: +972-9-766-1314 P.O.B. 7004 Mobile: +972-50-23-7338 Kfar-Saba 44641, Israel
