Daniel Swarbrick wrote: > Max CtRiX wrote: >> 2) that simple xml parser works quite well and i can use it in a simple >> way (so i can focus on the real meat) >> 3) i don't want to spend time to study external XML parsers and >> validators and implementing it > > Didn't somebody else (benjk? bkml?) want to use OSX-style plist configs? > They provide the hierarchical nature of XML, without being so complex to > validate and parse, and are also a heck of a lot more human readable. > > Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-XML. I believe there is a time and a > place for it. But I think unless you're going to link against a sturdy > XML library like libxml2, the homemade XML parser is overkill - use a > simpler config format, and a simpler parser. Plist.
You are perfectly right. Unfortunately, i need some kind of config parser different than the one we have inherited from * (i'd rather not call it parser). Please look at: http://trac.openpbx.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/ticket/115 I'm quite tired of waiting for plists so i have found an alternative. The XML parser i introduced (which is the same that FS uses) is not heavy, is not complex and does not validate. It has the same features that plists have but it is ready and working. Don't get me wrong but if someone *want* to use a parser, he shouldn't expect the others to do the job for him. At least we now have a valid alternative. Max _______________________________________________ Openpbx-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openpbx.org/mailman/listinfo/openpbx-dev
