Re: sysinst split project - The Configuration File

Am 14.12.2009 um 21:35 schrieb Jean-Yves Migeon:

> 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.
>

Lua would make a lot of sense, since Lua can also be used to drive the  
overall logic and user interface.  Lua should be embedded in sysinst  
to drive it.