httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Eli Marmor <mar...@netmask.it>
Subject Re: Apache config
Date Fri, 30 Apr 2004 12:03:09 GMT
Andre Malo wrote:
> 
> Eli Marmor wrote:
> 
> > 7. Elegance.
> 
> I tend to disagree.
> 
> XML configuration is not elegant. Especially when you need to start quoting
> shell stuff and regexps for XML.
> XML configs are huge. This will blow up a typical 8k configuration file at
> least to 32k or more.
> XML is slow and less powerful compared to the current system.
> 
> Anyway, I'm willing to get convinced when I see a new configuration system
> which (a) maps the current behaviour and complexities (b) does more than
> that and (c) make configuration of the httpd on a server system (no gui!)
> easier. Otherwise it's wasted time.
> 
> Good luck!

I agree, and the word "elegance" (like all the other benefits that I
listed") was not written about XML, but about the idea to make the
config bi-diretional, stored in a central tree accessible to the core
too, with a syntax/format defined in a standard way (independent on
specific module procedures to parse "RAW_ARGS"...), and re-using any
possible data, including the XML DOC definitions of the directives.

However, you have no choice but choosing a bi-directional format. XML
is bad, but common. I prefer other formats (such as the X Resources
format), but XML is what everybody and his dog uses these days...

Thanks!
-- 
Eli Marmor
marmor@netmask.it
CTO, Founder
Netmask (El-Mar) Internet Technologies Ltd.
__________________________________________________________
Tel.:   +972-9-766-1020          8 Yad-Harutzim St.
Fax.:   +972-9-766-1314          P.O.B. 7004
Mobile: +972-50-23-7338          Kfar-Saba 44641, Israel

Mime
View raw message