Hi,
I thought I would pose this question in a new thread seeing that the
other thread got totally high-jacked (and not by me for a change). :)
I'm curious to know what was the reason behind the decision to use XML
for storing simple Lazarus settings, instead of the much simpler INI
format? This is a legit question and I'm very curious as to the
answer. Please note, this is not a feature request or me telling the
Lazarus devs to change yet another thing in Lazarus. This is simply me
asking a question I don't have an answer too.
Here are some points that were raised before:
* FCL, LCL and Lazarus IDE have XML read/write code. They don't all
work the same, and I doubt they all have the same functionality.
* Not all code in Lazarus IDE uses the same XML read/write code
* Most XML examples in my ~/.lazarus/ directory would be much simpler
presented if they where INI files.
* FPC and Delphi has brilliant INI file support, and it's dead easy to use.
* What is the actual advantage of XML in this case or was it chosen
simply because XML was the flavour of the month at time of
implementation. Yes, at one point everything had to be XML or it just
wasn't cool. :-)
* Reading INI fast is FAST.
To make others understand my confusion regarding the XML choice, here
is an example, using the compileroptions.xml file located in my
~/.lazarus/ directory.
-------------------[ compileroptions.xml
]-------------------------------------
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<CONFIG>
<CompilerOptionsVersion Value="8"/>
<CompilerOptionsSearchPaths>
<IncludeFiles Value="$(ProjOutDir)/"/>
<UnitOutputDirectory Value="units/$(TargetCPU)-$(TargetOS)/"/>
</CompilerOptionsSearchPaths>
<CompilerOptionsParsing>
<SyntaxOptions>
<UseAnsiStrings Value="True"/>
</SyntaxOptions>
</CompilerOptionsParsing>
<CompilerOptionsOther>
<CompilerMessages>
<UseMsgFile Value="True"/>
</CompilerMessages>
<CompilerPath Value="$(CompPath)"/>
</CompilerOptionsOther>
</CONFIG>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a relatively small example, but still highlights my point.
Just looking at it gives me a headache. ;-) Now lets convert that to a
INI styled file.
BTW: Does anybody know what INI actually stands for? Initialization maybe?
-------------------[ compileroptions.ini
]-------------------------------------
[SearchPaths]
IncludeFiles=$(ProjOutDir)/
UnitOutputDirectory=units/$(TargetCPU)-$(TargetOS)/
[Parsing]
UseAnsiStrings=1
[Other]
UseMsgFile=1
CompilerPath=$(CompPath)
---------------------------------------------
Now both examples contain the same information, but lets be honest..
Which one is easier to read (via human or program), manually tweak if
needed via human in IDE screws up, takes up less disk space.
I fully understand that XML has it's place in data transport and helps
describe complex data. But using XML for something as simple as
storing a few application settings. It just seems very inappropriate
in this case, and a classic example of over-engineering.
--
Regards,
- Graeme -
_______________________________________________
fpGUI - a cross-platform Free Pascal GUI toolkit
http://opensoft.homeip.net/fpgui/
--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
