Prev: Selecting the font size matching the control's height
Next: Easy question
From: Tom Shelton on 17 Feb 2010 10:17
On 2010-02-17, Tom Shelton <tom_shelton(a)comcastXXXXXXX.net> wrote:
> On 2010-02-17, mayayana <mayayana(a)nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> I do appreciate the heirarchical nature of XML and
>>> that binary data can be
>>> stored in the XML format. I also appreciate the
>>> benefits of using the fast,
>>> centrally-managed registry. In my instance, and
>>> I'm guessing in a lot of
>>> applications, the INI file is perfect for the job, though.
>>>
>>
>> That seems to be it in a nutshell. XML has
>> specific advantages. It's also currently high
>> fashion, being shoehorned into "everything
>> but the kitchen sink".
>>
>> Manifests are a good example of
>> XML overuse: A very simple file that just needs
>> to contain a small string of data, it could easily
>> be an INI file. Yet Microsoft has turned manifests
>> into mysterious, ridiculous blobs of superfluous
>> XML, so complex that nobody can remember the
>> syntax.
>>
>> In another current thread of this group people
>> are talking about special software to generate
>> manifest XML. :)
>
> XML - while human readable is not necissarily meant to be human readable. I
> use it because it's portable, parsers are common and generally easy to use.
> In .NET it's a no brainer:
>
> string mySetting = ConfigurationManager.AppSettings("MySetting");
>

woops! bit of vb crept into that statement :) should be:

string mySetting = ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["MySetting"];
--
Tom Shelton
From: mayayana on 17 Feb 2010 10:43
> I use it because it's portable, parsers are common
> and generally easy to use.

I did say it has specific advantages. Your statement
is the sort of thing I mean in saying XML is fashionable.
It's like your approach to .Nxt. You don't just use it
where it makes sense and appreciate its strengths. You
feel a need to tell other people that they *should* use it.
There's an assumption that you're in a school of fish
and "we should all stay together".

It's just a tool, for goodness sake.

> In .NET it's a no brainer:
>
> string mySetting = ConfigurationManager.AppSettings("MySetting");
>

"No brainer" indeed. Is anyone supposed to
understand what your string (VB.Net? C-hash?)
has to do with XML ...or VB? Do I have to study the
..Nxt framework to get your point? Would you like
some directions to a .Nxt group? Here's an
"optimized" version:

<XML SCHEMA 1.2.3.4.something-or-other>
<OFFICIAL SCHEMA SUBTAG RFC-1234; 2009-2010:soo:>
<PC-RELATED>
<NNTP:newsgroup - format:readable;blah v. 1.21>
<GROUP_NAME_STRING_ENTRY>
microsoft.public.dotnet.general
</GROUP_NAME_STRING_ENTRY>
</NNTP:newsgroup - format:readable;blah v. 1.21>
</PC-RELATED>
</OFFICIAL SCHEMA SUBTAG RFC-1234; 2009-2010:soo:>
</XML SCHEMA 1.2.3.4.something-or-other>

I hope you can read that OK. I didn't actually run
it through the W3C XML propriety meter. Ideally
you should probably read it via v. 6 of MSXML.
If necessary you may want to update your version
of Windows so that you can install MSXML v. 6. :)



From: Tom Shelton on 17 Feb 2010 10:56
On 2010-02-17, mayayana <mayayana(a)nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> I use it because it's portable, parsers are common
>> and generally easy to use.
>
> I did say it has specific advantages. Your statement
> is the sort of thing I mean in saying XML is fashionable.
> It's like your approach to .Nxt. You don't just use it
> where it makes sense and appreciate its strengths. You
> feel a need to tell other people that they *should* use it.

I'm not telling you you should use it. I'm simply stating some of the
advantages of using it. Ini files are not necessarily portable to other OS's
- and I run some of my code on Linux as well as windows, so it's nice to have
a common format. It's called discussion. Sorry if the concept escapes you.


> There's an assumption that you're in a school of fish
> and "we should all stay together".
>
> It's just a tool, for goodness sake.
>

Yes it is.

>> In .NET it's a no brainer:
>>
>> string mySetting = ConfigurationManager.AppSettings("MySetting");
>>
>
> "No brainer" indeed. Is anyone supposed to
> understand what your string (VB.Net? C-hash?)
> has to do with XML ...or VB? Do I have to study the

Application configurations in .net have a specific schema (which can be
extended). ConfigurationManager is just a built in class that understands
that schema and can provide convienent access without worring about a parser.
The point was that it's actually much simpler to use an xml conig file in .net
then to use a ini file. There is a built in portable api.

I wouldnt have brought it up - except that the OP was using .NET.

--
Tom Shelton
From: Ralph on 17 Feb 2010 10:57
Tom Shelton wrote:
<snipped>
>
> XML - while human readable is not necissarily meant to be human
> readable. I use it because it's portable, parsers are common and
> generally easy to use. ...

lol - Your cognitive dissonance is showing.

What could be simpler than a text editor and INI tools that have been
available in Windows since Win286?

XML, INI, CVS, fixed-sized records, ... they are all part of a long list of
DIFFs. You made a choice, you like XML, and that is fine. There are a lot of
advantages to XML - but don't go deluding yourself it is because they are
somehow more portable or easier to parser compared to any of the others.

-ralph


From: Tom Shelton on 17 Feb 2010 11:21
On 2010-02-17, Ralph <nt_consulting64(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> Tom Shelton wrote:
><snipped>
>>
>> XML - while human readable is not necissarily meant to be human
>> readable. I use it because it's portable, parsers are common and
>> generally easy to use. ...
>
> lol - Your cognitive dissonance is showing.
>

Huh? What did I say that made think that? XML is not necissarily intended to
be human readable - it is just a side effect of the technology that it often
is. Sometimes it's not (at least not easily) - have you ever looked at say
the xml for an Office XML spread sheet (SpreadsheetML)?

> What could be simpler than a text editor and INI tools that have been
> available in Windows since Win286?
>

My C# code does not necissarily only run on windows. So, unless I want to
write a non-api ini parser then xml is the best choice. Not that it would be
hard, but it would be a complete waste of effort given the xml config files
built into the framework and that work in both environments.

> XML, INI, CVS, fixed-sized records, ... they are all part of a long list of
> DIFFs. You made a choice, you like XML, and that is fine. There are a lot of
> advantages to XML - but don't go deluding yourself it is because they are
> somehow more portable or easier to parser compared to any of the others.

See, I think we are comming from two different standpoints. When I say
protable, I mean accross different OS's. Of course, that wouldn't matter to
you as much - because if you are going to run your vb app on another os, such
as linux you would have to do so under wine - so, your ini would still work.
But, if I run a .net app on linux, i'm not going to want to do a p/invoke call
to the ini apis since it will fail. A ini is easy to parse manually of
course, but again why would I since I have a system already built in?

Belive me, I used to be all about ini files - I still have my INI parsing dll
around here. I've never been one for the registry - in fact, I've pretty much
avoided it's use from day one :)

--
Tom Shelton
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Selecting the font size matching the control's height
Next: Easy question