If I may add my US$0.02. I prefer to have the more verbose preferences file as well. From the perspective of someone who does not want to look through the code (not me, but those to whom I will be giving FlightGear), it would be nice if they can see all configurable options (without exception). Having the options scoped the way they are also helps someone who does not know XML get a handle on how to make modifications. Once I had a better grasp on how it worked, documenting the current XML file was not difficult (although I do have questions as to the meaning of some entries).
On a related topic, my idealized preferences file would look something like this: <PropertyList> <!-- General simulation preferences --> <sim> <startup include="my_startup.xml"> <aircraft include="my_aircraft.xml"> <panel include="my_panel.xml"> <fdm include="my_fdm.xml"> ... </sim> <radios include="my_radios.xml"> ... </PropertyList> The startup file would contain FDM generic configuration data. Aircraft would contain FDM generic aircraft information (if there is such a thing). All FDM related data would be confined to the FDM file, which may be subordinate to the aircraft XML file. This way, I could send someone to one file to make a change, i.e., I could have a template for JSBSim, YASIm, and UIUC FMD configurations. There again, each XML file would contain all allowable entries, so the configurer would just tweak the file, not add entries. It would also be nice if the engine data could be grouped (the fact that the engine exists and its configuration). FWIW, Jonathan Polley On Monday, March 18, 2002, at 12:37 PM, Curtis L. Olson wrote: > David Megginson writes: >> Andy Ross writes: >> >>> This would require changing the defaulting semantics, though. The >>> "default" value you fill in at parse-time should be true, but the >>> "default" you fill in when a non-existent property is queried should >>> be false. I'm not sure how hard that would be. >> >> I'm a little uncomfortable with that, but I could do it if people want >> it. It would make the XML files a little harder to process with XSLT, >> etc., by creating a special case. What does everyone else think? > > In my mind, empty values <foo></foo> would have no defined meaning. > I'd rather trade a little verbosity for better clarity and not stray > too far off the beaten path. > > Curt. > -- > Curtis Olson IVLab / HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project > Twin Cities [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Minnesota http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt http://www.flightgear.org > > _______________________________________________ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
