DragonFly BSD
DragonFly kernel List (threaded) for 2003-10
[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Xml in packaging system

From: Richard Coleman <richardcoleman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:46:08 -0500

I have found that 99% of the time that a project starts with the statement "FOO is overkill, let's just do something simple", the project will grow in complexity until you wish you had started with the more comprehensive approach the first time. I always get this feeling when I look at the POD (plain old documentation) used by the Perl folks. I'm sure people on the forums can think of many other examples.

I'm not an XML junkie, but I think it fits pretty good in the space we are discussing.

And remember that programmers are notorious for underestimating the complexity of a project. I've been guilty of it so many times, I've lost count.

ps. I don't really want to get into a discussion about POD. I was just using it as an example.

Richard Coleman

James Frazer wrote:
I have to agree with David on this.

XML in the packaging system is kind of over-kill, in my opinion.

I'm sure the OpenDarwin developers at one point considered XML for DarwinPorts but decided that it didn't provide any advantages (correct me if I'm wrong). In the end they settled with TCL key-value pairs because they were simple and easy to read/write (and dports was written in TCL anyway).

Not to say XML doesn't have useful applications, I just think it would make things slightly more complicated than they need be.

I personally think the design of DarwinPorts is going to turn out pretty good. Unfortunately I do not yet have a spare machine that I can install DFBSD and dports on to test/tinker with. Nobody seemed overly enthusiastic about dports when I mentioned it before so maybe it will just turn into one of those things I'll never get around to -- eventually I'll get to it -- I hope.

[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]