Re: Is xml overhyped?
- From: "William" <Reply@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 11:48:31 -0600
"Phlip" <phlipcpp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ubN8f.353$p37.189@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> The best good thing that can be said about XML is it's the
> _last_ "database in a text file" format that we should need.
> You can store any kind of string, and query it back,
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. I've seen it
used (and abused) where it is not appropriate.
> and you can edit the file by hand to tweak that string.
This requires the disclaimer: If you have to.
If you need a file a user is expected to edit, pick something
else. I find that developers who insist on using XML for basic
configuration files haven't recognized the difference between
a file that is essentially a user interface (where human
factors predominate, and the goal is purely input) and one
that is actually a real, live, database (for internal use with
only rare human intervention).
Aside from making life more complicated for users, it presents
a nightmare for application upgrades - which is my balliwick:
1. Any file a user can modify is automatically a pain to upgrade.
All user modifiable items should be segregated to a minimum
number of files, kept in one place.
2. If the format of the file is not relatively rigid, upgrading
automatically may not even be possible. (And that means it
will be expensive for everyone.)
For years I've been beating my brains out on the brick wall of
developers who are used to writing one-off, minimal upgrade
potential, apps and just can't get used to the idea that the
real world of commercial apps isn't always like that. (When a
customer invests millions in a license, they not only expect
upgrades, they can force that expectation down our throats.)
This rant is less about XML than it is about trying one-size-
fits-all, and hell take the hindmost choices.
> XML's robust definition and simple tools have allowed an
> explosion of various file formats written via XML. For
> example, Ant scripts replace the hoary Makefile format, to
> manage project dependencies in a build system.
Now if ant only had make's abilities to go with it. (Granted,
the Makefile sytax is arcane, to say the least, but there is
a lot of power buried in there.)
> Because XML is flexible, you can add data that Ant does not
> care about.
That's not special to XML - it's a pretty common feature for
many configuration file formats. (Like the Windows .ini format
with its ubiquitous [section] tags, or any other sectioned
file format, text or binary.) In some cases it is limited to
blocks of data, some allow finer granularity.
-Wm
.
- References:
- Is xml overhyped?
- From: casioculture
- Is xml overhyped?
- Prev by Date: Re: ti-83 basic programming / poker
- Next by Date: Synchronization routine
- Previous by thread: Re: Is xml overhyped?
- Next by thread: Re: Is xml overhyped?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
