On 17.11.2010, at 19:23, Jordi Boggiano wrote: > On 18.11.2010 00:44, Tim Nagel wrote: >> I dont have an opinion either way on configuration files, but to me the >> XML one makes more sense for such a complicated configuration - the XSD >> validation means that we can always be sure the config file is correct? >> >> Was there any progress on YAML validation? > > I keep saying I'm happy to port Kwalify [1] to PHP the day we settle on > Yaml for all configs, but otherwise I'm not that motivated sorry. > > The problem of the XSD validation is that it only applies to the xml > configs afaik. > > Kwalify, if ported, could (if we build it) be able to do checks on the > final configuration arrays if you're using XML or PHP configs. And if > you use Yaml you'd get as a bonus the line number of the error I guess. > > [1] http://www.kuwata-lab.com/kwalify/ruby/users-guide.01.html#schema
right .. i do think we need validation, but as Jordi mentioned there is a way .. i also like merge key (afaik we only have merge single map in sfYaml) helps in defining reuseable extenable config structures. i use this a lot when defining controller services. and again its a lot easier and more readable than equivalent things in xml: http://yaml.org/type/merge.html regards, Lukas Kahwe Smith [email protected] -- If you want to report a vulnerability issue on symfony, please send it to security at symfony-project.com You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "symfony developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/symfony-devs?hl=en
