Re: sysinst split project - The Configuration File

On 12/14/09 18:57, Volker A. Brandt wrote:
[snip]
>> As for trying to count the number of people who "know" one language or
>> another, well that's a specious argument in this context.  XML syntax
>> might be easy to know, and a given XML DTD might be simple to
>> understand, but SGML style syntax overall is a _horrible_ syntax for
>> both humans and computers to use.
>
> I respectfully disagree.  I find it not so bad, and computers don't care.

While computers do not care, XML processing is heavy, given all the 
tools required to parse just one simple XML file together with its 
DTD/Schema.

I have to manually tweak XML config files at $DAYJOB on a weekly basis, 
used in an environment that generates a configuration, Makefiles and ROM 
image for embedded devices. It is unbelievably heavy, and inconvenient 
to edit. While I understand that some XML files can be structured in a 
human readable and editable way, the vast majority of the files I have 
seen are just a pain.

Especially when you throw in markup languages like YAML or JSON which 
are, IMO, much easier to read than plain XML.

Anyway, I hope you won't end like HAL and its fdi files. While xorg.conf 
is not something expected to be understandable easily (way behind 
sendmail anyway ;) ), it was easily readable. Now that X.org uses HAL, 
we didn't win on the "understandable" side, but IMHO, regress on the 
"readable" one.

>> I think the point also is that sysinst(8) _really_ NEEDS an embedded
>> scripting language anyway

+1

>> Why does everyone seem want to shout "XML" in answer to such a wide
>> variety of questions when that isn't even a proper or complete answer to
>> any possible question!!?!?!?
>
> Maybe because "everyone" is not interested in a "pure" way for its own
> sake, but cares more for established standards, easy interoperability,
> and accessibility for the non-guru level user.

"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" syndrom.

What about JSON or YAML then? Do you consider them as "established 
standards, easy interoperability, and accessibility for the non-guru 
level user" ?

> Anyway, I would have liked to see a "parameterized sysinst + native
> packaging tool + system packages + automated netboot" installation system
> for NetBSD.  It would have gone a long way towards acceptance of NetBSD
> outside the "hardcore" user community.

I very much agree.

-- 
Jean-Yves Migeon
[email protected]