Re: [as-devel] 1.8 ?

Ethan (allanon@crystaltokyo.com)
Tue, 27 Jul 1999 23:06:21 -0700 (PDT) 


On Tue, 27 Jul 1999, Steven Baker wrote:

>   The advantages of using XML are clear.  It is fast becoming a
> standard, the next HTML DTD will be XML based, and many programs are
> already using XML.

Very true.  While the current learning curve to write this stuff by hand 
may seem steep (knowing HTML helps here), as XML becomes more common, it 
should become less so.  There are, as Steven points out, lots of apps 
that use it already, and more all the time, so there isn't a question of 
XML's future popularity - it's already popular.

>   Using XML also relieves us from having to code configuration parsing
> ourselves, there are some XML libraries already.  What was once
> gnome-xml (which is soon going to be officially libxml) is supposedly
> a great place to start for XML coding, though I havent' explored the
> API yet.

External libraries are evil. :)  One of AfterStep's greatest strengths, 
IMO, lies in the number of non-basic-X-library dependencies it has - 
zero.

However, I agree with Steven here.  If we use XML, it would be best to 
use an already written (and tested) library.  The only reason I can think 
of to write our own library is to keep it small and focussed, and in 
doing so, we'd lose some of the compatibility that makes XML worthwhile.

I downloaded and installed Gnome's libxml, version 1.4.0.  It's ~400k to 
download, no dependencies, and compiled easily.  The test programs, which 
use the library to parse and dump XML, are about 200 lines apiece.

>   The obvious disadvantage to using XML are that it's a mess to write
> by hand.  Of course, we _could_ write programs to either a) convert to
> XML from the current format, or b) have graphical configuration.  I
> can hear the more "elite" of the bunch groaning at the "graphical
> configuration" point as I type.

Graphical configuration is a Good Thing.  New users tend to find graphics 
more comfortable, and experienced users may find it quicker for some 
changes.  Don't get me wrong, though - being able to edit the config 
files by hand is essential, IMO. :)

> <look>
>  ... Data for appearance.
> </look>
> <feel>
>  ... Data for feel.
> </feel>

A good idea.  Difficult to implement, though.  Problem is, AfterStep's 
on-the-fly reconfiguration system assumes that reading certain files 
will define certain things.  For example, it deletes all MyStyles before 
reading the look file.  This idea is currently feasible, if we know in 
advance what tags (<look>, <feel>, etc) will be in the target file.

----
Ethan Fischer
allanon@crystaltokyo.com
http://members.xoom.com/allanon1