> The difference is that configuration and the actual parameter values are not
> necessarily the same thing, in the real world the configuration has to be
> written down, preferably in language which is easy for people to administer,
> as they won't always have the specific language skills we might like them to
> have.
Like I said, I'm not against people writing XML if they feel comfortable
with that. Maybe I'd write a Gemlet that slurps in an XML config
and executes other Gemlets accordingly. Or I could write a different
Gemlet that slurps in BASIC if someone wanted that. If the core
doesn't depend on one scheme, it can be very flexible.
> A big mailing list would take as one parameter the location of a list of
> members, not the list itself, that location realistically needs to be
> written down in a text file.
Well if you had a personal list with 3 people, storing the list
itself and maintaining manually is good. I like schemes that scale
from 2 or 3 up to thousands without having to rejig.
> I also think we should look to the example of httpd, which has a quite
> bewildering variety of parameters that can be configured, but people are OK
> with that because they *don't* need to configure it with C++ or shell
> scripts,
That's because you don't program a web site with httpd.conf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
