Mailing-List: contact users-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@httpd.apache.org
Message-ID: <3CC98BC2.8050300@incogen.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 13:17:54 -0400
From: Josh Glover <jmglov@incogen.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020326
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: users@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: New GUI for Apache
References: <2.2.32.20020425055655.00d47740@kwinternet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Eric Frazier wrote:
> I hope this doesn't happen with Apache. I really don't want to get used to
> reading XML, and I am not enough of a GUI user to the degree I would have to
> become if all of the text config files on Linux suddenly went XML.  The more
> I think about it, I really don't see what is such a big deal about a GUI
> parser, doesn't Apache have one(a config parser) already?? Well it is open
> source isn't it?  The lack of standard documentation forms is more of a
> problem, but that doesn't mean everything should be solved with XML. 

You are missing the main point. XML is a text format. The big advantage to
using XML for config files comes when using parsers to extract info from or
update your config files. XML is not any harder to read than foo=bar style
config files, IMHO. I think it would be A Good Thing (tm) if a standard for
config files emerged, whether it be XML or something else, and that is 
what I have been trying to say in this thread.


-- 
Josh Glover <jmglov@incogen.com>

Associate Systems Administrator
INCOGEN, Inc.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org