On 1/25/07, Alan Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 11:20 +0000, Andrew Stitcher wrote:
> My preference for config file format would currently be YAML
> (http://www.yaml.org/). As there are implementations for lots of
> languages and the file format is easy to read and write by a person
> (unlike XML).
>
> It would obviously be beneficial for the C++ broker to use the same
> config file as the Java broker for ease of transistion so this would be
> another consideration. However then we would presumably need to add XML
> persing into the C++ broker (in my experience big and unwieldy) just for
> the config file.
yaml looks good to me, and it still lets us support the XML fetishists
out there. From http://www.yaml.org/xml.html :
"For those who love YAML, but require buzz-word compliance or require
XML angle brackets, there is a clean option -- a subset of XML which has
YAML's information model, but XML's syntax. Since a YAML stream may not
start with a '<' character, a YAML implementation could implement an
implicit, automatic conversion of XML in this schema to the equivalent
YAML. As a proof of concept, a XSLT Stylesheet is provided, along with
the canonical invoice example in XML using this schema.
Cheers,
Alan.
While I like flexibility, I think one or the other (yaml or xml) is
better. I've never been
a fan of XML configuration files, I've found that simple property
value files were
sufficient for most things, but YAML seems to give a simple file format that is
easy to both read and edit.
+1 YAML
-1 XML
jesus
