new sysinstall

Robert Garrett rg70 at
Thu Aug 28 13:38:33 PDT 2003

0$268$415eb37d at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200308281952.h7SJqYmX051510 at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-Agent: KNode/0.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Lines: 31
X-Trace: 1062103120 268
Xref: dragonfly.kernel:713

Matthew Dillon wrote:

>     Calm down guys.
>     I am not paricularly fond of XML myself, it has been hyped up so much
>     that people often use it in situations where it makes no sense to use
>     it.  Also, keep in mind that XML itself does not impart any
>     capabilities at all, only the *programs* written to process it impart
>     such capabilities. XML's primary motivation has always been to allow
>     data portability between
>     applications.  XML does not magically make a particular data topology
>     operational.  If you only have one program operating on an XML dataset
>     then the fact that the dataset is in XML does not really give you any
>     particular advantage, IMHO.  On the otherhand, if multiple programs
>     understand a particular XML definition, such as can be found in the
>     documentation arena, XML becomes a lot more useful.
> -Matt
> Matthew Dillon
> <dillon at xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
The idea is to use xml for what it's good at. Modules use xml to present
options to the user, the cm interface just displays what is requested
from the module. The only use of xml is between the module, and the user
interface. a data abstraction layer making it easier to maintain the 
user interface side, and to present multiple i.e. console and X versions
of the interface without having to rewrite the interaction code for 
each module. Making the system configuration understand xml is pointless,
and IMHO useless. Making a modular configuration management system to
configure the system configuration we have now makes very good sense.

Robert Garrett

More information about the Kernel mailing list