Also sprach George Bonser:
} On Sun, 9 Apr 2000, Bill Wendling wrote:
}
} > It may be wordy, but it is standard, parsers do exist for it, and you
} > don't have the fun of having 10 kagillion different file formats to
} > parse.
} >
} > Sometimes the bleeding edge is a good thing.
}
} There is no need to store it in XML, really, if data in /proc is
} presented in a standard way. It would be easy enough to convert that
} standard format to XML with a utility. Imagine:
}
Certainly. I merely mention it cause I'm an XML advocate (J/K). Actually,
it seemed the natural way, to me, of storing data which is heirarchical
in nature. One interesting thing might be the creationg of a filesystem
which is created according to an XML document.
} hmm, I just noticed in the course of that that there is a counter for
} recieve multicast but not one for transmit. Most likely to convert to XML
} one might consider a directory as a tag ... maybe something like:
}
} <proc>
} <net>
} <dev>
} <interface>
} <eth0>
} <receive>
} bytes=21421
} packets=243
} ...
} </receive>
My guess is that `bytes' would be either another tag or an attribute of
`receive'. Perhaps this:
<proc>
<directory name="net">
<file name="dev">
<field name="interface">
<subfield name="eth0"/>
</field>
<field name="receive">
<subfield name="bytes" value="21421"/>
</field>
</file>
</directory>
</proc>
The major problem with doing config files in XML (even going beyond /proc
files into things like /etc/passwd, etc.) is that you get into
`political' debates. Everyone needs to agree on a standard naming/usage
convention.
Not an easy thing.
-- || Bill Wendling wendling@ganymede.isdn.uiuc.edu- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 15 2000 - 21:00:13 EST