Hi everyone, I've taken some time to think about this and it appears I'm one of the few people that would like to keep XML. At first I wasn't a big fan of XML either. Yes it's a bit more verbose and indeed, one might not have completion in their IDE. But XML is also a lot easier to debug. It has a syntax that is generally more widely known and adopted and more importantly it can be validated with standard tools. But most importantly it can also be created and modified programmatically. I'm pretty sure I'd even keep my application configuration in XML, think of the following scenario: How often did your boss/client request you to make a change which, because you're such a good programmer, only require you to alter a few configuration settings. I'd love to have my app. config in XML. Now I can create a form to manage those settings and grant super users the rights to do so. Because it's XML and validated by XSD I know that things won't break. At least if I validate the XML in the form before saving it. This way I just let my boss client do it themselves or I login myself. I'm pretty sure this is a lot quicker than altering the config values, running the tests, committing, deploying and finally performing an end- to-end test.
This and the problems you see time and again with beginners that have errors in their YAML files leads me to vote strongly against removing XML. Keeping YAML is fine by me but I'd prefer XML anytime. Kindest regards, Marijn On Nov 18, 12:57 pm, Jordi Boggiano <[email protected]> wrote: > On 18.11.2010 07:11, Fabien Potencier wrote: > > >> So.. as a followup to last's week IRC talk, where someone told me to > >> convert the security services definition from xml to yaml to see how > >> ugly it would get, I'd like to present you my findings: It's actually > >> ok! ;) > > >> First of all, the base XML one:http://pastie.org/1307034 > >> Second, the Yamlified version:http://pastie.org/1307035 > > >> Seeing that, what do you guys think? Do you really think XML is worth it? > > > Just for the record, on IRC, we said YAML for app config and XML for > > bundle config. > > You and others agreed on YAML for app config, but I'm still trying to > argue my way into having consistent configs with YAML for everything. > > > For core bundles, I want to keep XML (as it means no dependencies on the > > YAML component). For end user bundles, I'm +0 to make YAML the > > recommended best practice. > > I don't really get the issue with the YAML component. You're still > relying on the DI component, D2 is relying on Yaml, app config is > relying on Yaml. I think components shouldn't rely on each other, but > Bundles are somewhat Symfony specific, and there we can assume we have > access to Yaml. > > > If the idea is to drop XML support entirely, then I'm strongly -1. > > The idea is not to drop XML, although I wouldn't mind. I'm not against > having the flexibility, but I just think at the moment it doesn't really > make sense, you have different config schemes, and they're all using a > lowest common denominator approach which means they all sort of suck. > > What I'd like is to get rid of XSDs at least. I'd rather have some other > validation format that can be applied to all config formats. > > At the moment you also have those two XML/XSD-specific methods in every > DI Extension class that don't really mean much if you use Yaml. It just > feels a bit awkward to me. > > Cheers > > -- > Jordi Boggiano > @seldaek ::http://seld.be/ -- 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
