> > If you think about it, what *really* matters is the bytes inside DRI. > > The XF86Config syntax is just sugar to make it easy to get the right > > values in there for people handy a text editor. An XML syntax is just > > different kind of sugar which makes it *trivial* to write tools for people > > handy with a mouse. Not to mention facilitating features like preventing > > invalid configurations from being saved, and other stuff that comes > > essentially free with XML. > > > The "writing tools" bit is handled already, given the existence of > the xf86 config library. So "XML makes it easier to write tools" is an > invalid argument. > Not to mention that "people handy with a mouse", and not code, should not > be writing tools for this stuff in the first place!
set lurk="off" set devils_advocate="on" The "operating system" bit is handled already, given the existence of Microsoft Windows. So "Linux makes it easier to write software" is an invalid argument. Not to mention that "people handy with a CLI", and not GUIs, should be be writing visual tools in the first place! Yes, XML can lead to feature creep in the config syntax, and its die-hard advocates often go overboard, but so what? If it allows more people to have greater control over their system, what's wrong with that? And if they can do it with less effort, great. I am/was a Slackware/Debian user, but I'm lazy; there's nothing wrong with a mouse. > And the "preventing invalid configurations" stuff is not "free". As I > understand it, you have to write lengthy XML stuff to set rules, etc, etc. AFAIK, you only have to write those rules it if you want your XML document to be fully validated when your library initially parses the document. And "preventing invalid configurations" is not "free" with any library, XML or not. > The argument was previously made, of "Well, we'll keep the XML syntax > simple, so the bloated XML argument wont apply". > > I would think writing all the XML rules, and then having all the current > developers have to *learn* all the XML syntax, so they can figure out what > the heck is wrong with what they want to add to the config file, lands back > in the "bloated XML" side. again, devil's advocate: I would think writing all the XFree86 rules, and then having all the current devlopers have to *learn* all the XFree86 syntax, so they can figure out what the heck is wrong with what they want to add to the config file, lands back in the "bloated XFree86" side. --end A simple XML config file with a reasonable layout allows for all sorts of parsers and config tools in all sorts of languages in a very cross-platform manner. Someone might even write a program to transform the XML format into the current XFree86 format, which you can then edit/transform with libxf86whatever, and then transform back into XML. -jdm, (who will now head back into his cave in his asbestos suit) Department of Computer Science, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708-0129 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~justin/ ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
