Re: configuration files

[Robert Garrett <rg70@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At one point in time we had this discussion in great depth,
the thing that came out of it was the possibility of adding
the ability for the "modules" in /etc/rc.d to turn themselves
on and off. 

so the configuration mechanism could just say form example
. /motd on

Rob

Dave Leimbach wrote:

> James Frazer <jfrazer@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
>> Heh, well I don't know about you, but I very rarely write entire
>> config files from scratch.  A few changes here or there wouldn't be a
>> big deal :-)
> 
> True ... if there were some utility though that could read an
> arbitrary DTD/Schema for a config file then it would be easier to
> create configurations.
> 
> If such a toolset existed I think all reasons to not use XML would be
> gone.  I am actually trying to create one in Cocoa in my other spare
> time at http://www.7wx.org.  I am still in the tech-research phase to
> see what's a good framework to base it on and what isn't.
> 
>> 
>> Most config files stay pretty static IMO.  When you install your base
>> system (or your fav app) there's usually a default or sample config
>> file -- often a few changes is all that is needed to get things up and
>> running.  I've just always found it somewhat of a nuisance -- cryptic
>> syntax -- different syntax for different files -- sometimes the
>> examples suck and are not very intuitive.
>> 
> 
> To some extent yes I will agree.  People basically want to change a
> field or two at a time.
> 
> With an ncurses interface configuration files might be easier to deal
> with as they are almost certainly more broad than they are deep [DOM
> tree speaking that is].
> 
> Since we are eventually going to have a new installer for DragonFly
> perhaps this wouldn't be a bad idea to look into?
> 
> If the XML is used internally and we use some transform to generate
> the traditional BSD config files we can have our cake and eat it too
> perhaps.
> 
>> Ideally I think XML-config would probably be auto-generated or
>> abstracted in someway -- as to leave hand typing to a last resort.
>> Most config files probably wouldn't result in too many levels of
>> complexity.  I also think it would be easier to write a generalized
>> frontend to change any settings -- it's impossible to write a frontend
>> to do this now, as different config-files often have such major
>> differences in syntax.
>> 
> 
> Yeah... like I said above :)
> 
> You can write generic XML DTD compliant forms "presenters" that is if
> you make a DTD for all the possible fields of a configuration file [or
> just a way to enter key value pairs] you can present a generic form
> interface where the user just keys in the key/values [which is exactly
> what you probably do in files like /etc/rc.conf so the advantage of
> XML is probably lost here].
> 
>> Kind of funny though, I'm pretty sure I used the same argument (too
>> much typing) against you back during the XML-in-packages discussion.
>> I knew that one would come back to bite me at some point.
>> 
> 
> Yeah... I remember :)  XAR is a tar replacement with an XML TOC.  Its
> actually pretty neat but the CVS is stagnating I fear.
> 
>> 
>> --James
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Dave Leimbach wrote:
>> 
>> <snip>
>> 
>> > Here is my vote for I really hope we never use XML for configuration
>> > files.  Its a real pain in the butt to type all thos <> </> tags.
>> > For sufficiently deep XML trees its also error for humans to
>> > correctly
>> > type the correct ending tag with a matching begin tag.  I use XML a
>> > lot... I like it for things like DocBook but I sure don't
>> > want to edit it by hand.
>> >