Re: sysinst split project - The Configuration File
David Holland <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.os.netbsd.current,gmane.os.netbsd.devel.installation |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 02:16:44PM -0600, David Young wrote: > Use XML for the configuration. That ensures that the configuration is > queryable/transformable with NetBSD's forthcoming xmltools. I know that > writing XML by hand is objectionable, so establish a one-to-one mapping > from your user-friendly format to an XML format. Provide a tool to/from > the XML format. I'm going to stick my oar in to make four observations: 1. Most of the rest of this thread is conflating *configuration* and *scripting*. Configuration should not be Turing-complete, because it becomes unmanageable. (See "sendmail".) Scripting is Turing-complete by definition. 2. Scripting should be done in a programming language. XML has no legitimate business in this department. 3. Configuration should be done in a concise and legible format, such as key/value pairs, nested key/value pairs, columnar tables, or whatever. Since XML is content-free^W^W just syntax, any such sane format can easily be represented as XML. (As long as the data remains strictly hierarchical and isn't, say, graph-structured. But that's not likely to be a problem here.) 4. Parsers are cheap. Sysadmins' time and sanity isn't. If you have both configuration and scripting, the configuration data should be made available (as data, in a clearly defined schema) to the user scripts. -- David A. Holland [email protected]