On Tue, Dec 24, 2002 at 09:51:07AM -0800, Rich Morin wrote:
> >So with simple data like this, I'd just use YAML. This isn't really
> >important, just a YAML plug. :) But it does have a better resulting data
> >structure as we'll see below.
>
> I went to a talk on YAML and was quite impressed, overall. My main issue
> with it is that it isn't "buzzword-compliant". As I'm hoping to have other
> folks write programs to read my files at some point, this may be an issue.
FWIW there's Perl, Ruby and Python implementations. A C library is in the
works and I think someone's doing a Java one.
And, of course, you can always just...
$ xyx ps.yml > ps.xml
$ cat ps.xml
<ps>
<processes>
<stat>SN+</stat>
<pcpu>4.6</pcpu>
<pid>123</pid>
</processes>
<processes>
<stat>R</stat>
<pcpu>2.3</pcpu>
<pid>234</pid>
</processes>
<time>123456789</time>
</ps>
<ps>
<processes>
<stat>R</stat>
<pcpu>2.4</pcpu>
<pid>123</pid>
</processes>
<processes>
<stat>SN</stat>
<pcpu>3.4</pcpu>
<pid>456</pid>
</processes>
<time>234567890</time>
</ps>
(For this example I put the top level "ps:" back into the YAML so it would
translate better into XML)
xyx is just a really thin wrapper around YAML.pm and XML::Simple.
--
Michael G. Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/
Perl Quality Assurance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Kwalitee Is Job One
It wasn't false, just differently truthful.
-- Abhijit Menon-Sen in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
