Mark Brownell wrote: > With regard to XML ... It is cool to have an XML parser in Rev. But the > potential is vast, and I hope to see some sign that Runrev have a strategic > direction with this. For example, it would be nice for them to integrate > version control from within Rev. This surely must be of use to _all_ Rev > developers. And since CVS seems to be coming the standard and is open source, > I see no reason why something like Geoff's XML stack couldn't be fully > integrated into Rev along with a CVS module. That way one could just convert > a stack into human readable XML, store it in the CVS repository, and reconvert > it back into a stack.
Why do you need to read an XML version of a stack? > Furthermore, we could perform diffs on this so that we > could see what had changed between two versions, etc. Even if Runrev do not > want the hassle of integrating with CVS, it would be beneficial if stacks > could actually be emitted as XML to the filesystem so they could be diffed. Couldn't you diff the binaries? One use for stack-to-XML-and-back conversion that interested me a while back was to be able to post simple stack definitions to the discussion list so folks could run object-dependent code examples without having to create objects manually. While it's not much harder to make a more complete XML conversion tool, it is much more tedious. Am I the only one with an interest in this sort of stack-XML usage, or is that where you were headed with the human-readability above? -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Media Corporation Developer of WebMerge 2.2: Publish any database on any site ___________________________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FourthWorld.com Tel: 323-225-3717 AIM: FourthWorldInc _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
