"Norman Vine" wrote:
> Martin Spott writes:

>> This is a very interesting approach that you present here - and
>> probably the only one that doesn't destruct the whole idea of having
>> human-adaptable configuration files. In my eyes _dropping_ ASCII XML
>> files from the distribution should considered to be a no-go,

> Dropping the ASCII XML files from the distribution is jsut as likely
> and no less user friendly then dropping the source code files from
> the distribution.

I totally disagree. The C/C++ source code is solely for building the
executable binaries. For some serious reasons the runtime configuration
has been swapped out to an XML framework to enable _everyone_,
including Joe Average User to adjust their local copy of FlightGear to
their very special 'needs'.

The distinct separation of the user-configurable part into a human
readable format is one of the major achievements in the development of
FlightGear over the past years. Do you really want to turn the clock
back ? BTW, as nice as CWXML might be, it adds yet another library
dependency to FlightGear - one of the major reason, why the use of
Metakit had been abandoned in the past.

> Just use the source Luke :-)

Yes, I do ....  right on the track to figure how much effort it would
be to 'port' CWXML to IRIX/MIPSpro. Apparently they rely on having GCC
as compiler on _every_ supported Unix platform.

 Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !

Flightgear-devel mailing list

Reply via email to