Not superior. Just different. Here is why I would favor XML based configuration:
1. You can validate against a DTD 1a. The DTD is a good place to document settings. Granted, we can also document the properties file. However, if a developer forgets to add every possible option into the properties files, the user has no idea that the setting exists unless the code is examined. 2. It has the appearance of being more standard. I know that property files are just as good. I just think that using XML might be more appealing to would-be users of Turbine (I am starting to sound like a marketing person). It also seems to be a direction that most applications seem to take for configuration. Granted, you can name off many applications that don't. 3. For the users with tools to edit the XML files, they get the benefits of that XML editor. This simply is not possible with a properties file. > -----Original Message----- > From: Henning P. Schmiedehausen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 11:24 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [VOTE] fulcrum deprecation > > > Stephen Haberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >Users could run it once against their TR.props and get their > brand new > >XML-based configuration. I like it; this seems to be our > best option so > >far. > > I still don't understand, why XML is superior to properties. > > Regards > Henning > > -- > Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- > Geschaeftsfuehrer > INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20 > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:turbine-dev-> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For > additional commands, > e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
