On Mon, 2004-03-15 at 12:13, Armin Bauer wrote: > On Mon, 2004-03-15 at 18:01, Tom Foottit wrote: > > This means that the sync engine has to have knowledge of each plugin's > > configuration parameters, which is probably a bad idea. > > thats the great thing about xml: i can just take the <config> portion of > it and manufacture a new file from it. i dont need to know anything what > is within the <config>
Unless you want to validate the XML (DTD, XML Schema, Relax NG, etc.) - then you have to understand the structure. I'm not saying we necessarily want to do this (the XML is not really designed to be edited by the end user) but it does eliminate this option. > > > Why not have the > > <config> tag store the base-64 encoded configuration string as an opaque > > value? It wouldn't even have to be XML :) > > thats of course also an option. I think it might be the better one IMHO, but I'll think about it some more :) Tom ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click _______________________________________________ Multisync-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/multisync-devel
