ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Todd <>
Subject Re: !oh yeah!
Date Wed, 05 Jul 2000 03:01:17 GMT

yep. you basically can't beat descriptive data and as such
folks will be able to get up'n running in short order (eg
config'ing a web server) or will be able to extend and layer
in new features (eg tools, etc) as well. beats the heck out
of cryptic config files anyday.

if the verbosity is an issue (not in my book) one could
conceivably come up with an xslt transformation allowing
one to deal with a hell-a-obfuscated "<a><b/></a>" type
beast ... if one so chooses.

i'm a bit biased with regards to server.xml (i wrote the first
rev back in the day) and with that said i'm impressed with
what folks have done with it. intuitive, clean, nothing but
goodness all around.

- james

"Timm, Sean" wrote:

> Get the format right, and the tools will follow.  I think XML was a great
> choice.  No one ever said you'd have to manually type the thing forever.
> - Sean T.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Sieben (EUS) []
> Sent: Friday, June 30, 2000 12:09 PM
> To: ''
> Subject: RE: !oh yeah!
> You like server.xml?
> ugh. I wish they had stuck with some simple format for the thing, like the
> apache configuration.
> IMO it's a step backwards in server configuration for UNIX (not to be
> compared with the great leap backward that is Win32, and the total
> forece-feeding of GUI configuration.) Typing all that
> <servetcontext><servelet></servlet></servletcontext> just takes
> Anyways that's my rant.

View raw message