named.conf file in xml
Jeff Lightner
jlightner at water.com
Thu Mar 16 18:28:56 UTC 2006
MS "embracing standards". What a laugh!
They fought Sun because they wanted to make their own proprietary
version of Java. They're resisting a truly open "open document"
standard. There are dozens of other examples of how they "embrace
standards".
Saying they "embrace standards" is much like saying Ted Bundy "embraced
women".
-----Original Message-----
From: bind-users-bounce at isc.org [mailto:bind-users-bounce at isc.org] On
Behalf Of Tom Jones
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 12:36 PM
To: Kevin Darcy
Cc: comp-protocols-dns-bind at isc.org
Subject: Re: named.conf file in xml
Look, I'm no fan of Microsoft, and I understand the "easy human"
readable config files. My point about MS is that they are embracing
standards like XML to make it easier to write tools and GUI's for
their applications. This is seen as great asset, so no matter what or
how , all you have to do is generate the xml file based on the schema.
All I know is that, the more I've started to use XML the easier it
gets for writing webservices to which can control a lot of my apps
and their xml config files. This also allows me to not to need to
learn yet another config syntax since there is no real standard for
config files.
tom
On Mar 13, 2006, at 1:19 PM, Kevin Darcy wrote:
> Bit of a non sequitur there IMHO. If your point is "humans
> shouldn't be
> fiddling with text files directly anyway, the 'Microsoft way' is to
> have
> some fancy GUI as the human/config interface", then if said GUI is in
> place, what does it matter whether the underlying config is a plain
> text
> file, an XML file, or a bunch of registry keys? Or, did you have some
> other point, and if so, what is it?
>
> - Kevin
>
> Tom Jones wrote:
>
>> IMHO, It's this kind of thought and denial which allows Microsoft to
>> grow and become more widely used and accepted.
>>
>> tom
>>
>>
>> On Mar 10, 2006, at 3:40 AM, tsar.peter at gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> "XML is a standard" ??? Well, in the small context of 2005 - 2007
>>> maybe XML
>>> might qualify as "observed in the wild". But surviving into a
>>> distand
>>> future ?
>>> Allow me to doubt.
>>>
>>> Text files on the other hand will always be readable by humans and
>>> manipulated by
>>> computers. Don't forget that the most importent issue with any
>>> configuration file
>>> format is to be understandable by the human reader ( who has to
>>> understand it)
>>>
>>>
>>> Request not granted. :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
More information about the bind-users
mailing list