configuration files

[Emiel Kollof]

* James Frazer (jfrazer at xxxxxxxx) wrote:
> Right, using XML for the sake of using it a waste of time.  However, as 
> mentioned before I think one could more easily create frontends to XML 
> configs than currently possible with regular text config-files.

Sure, you could use XML internally for your own application. The beauty
of XML is that you can use it to generate all kinds of stuff from it,
like key->value configuration files that we currently use :)

[snip]
> Configuration files DO contain data.  And portability among 
> configuration data is somewhat important -- for example -- when 
> upgrading your OS -- if the format of the config files change in any way 
> -- compatibility with your old config files is broken.  I've had this 
> happen to me before -- and often there really isn't much indication as 
> to what the heck has changed.  This creates a sticky situation. 
> Validation by a new schema would reveal which old config files need 
> updating and which do not (mostly).

I don't see how XML differs in that respect from 'normal' configuration
files. If the DTD or the Schema changes, there is a very large potential
to get screwed too.

> Importing settings from other sorces (a different server) is another 
> example where it might be beneficial.

This I don't see as well... Care to give a good example? 

Cheers,
Emiel
--