On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Simon Laws <[email protected]> wrote: > OK good. I don't see negatives in supporting an XML syntax that > represents configuration params as long as those parameters are clear > and consistent.
I wasn't saying there should not be XML, i was suggesting that if there is XML it should match the API and that the API should be easy to use so that if you're doing something programatically like these testcases then you'd probably be using the API instead of resorting to writing XML. > So it seems that we should > > 1/ review what the configuration parameter set is > 2/ review the various APIs we have and what parameters they support. > > I'll can go and make a list assuming that someone doesn't point me > toward an existing one. > Sounds ok and I don't think that already exists, I'd also add a 3/ or perhaps that should be 0/ "review what the use cases are that the APIs are for". ...ant
