ShowEQ Configuration files

[Zaphod]

The preference system we borrowed from SINS for ShowEQ 4.0 is less buggy in many ways than the old preference system implementation. It still sucks though. Their are a bunch of cases it doesn't handle well: New entries that should be quoted aren't, screwing up comment lines, etc...

So, I looked at it, and am considering doing something a bit different. I'm considering migrating to an XML style configuration file parsed using Qt's internal XML parser. Probably using a shema similar to what Qt 3.x uses for it's configuration system (although just to assure you, I'm not looking to force a migration to Qt 3.x at this time). Migration tools/scripts would of course be provided to move existing data into the new format. Now for the question, should I or shouldn't I.

I will look at the tally on Wed 27/3/2002 and make my decision.

Let me know what you think.

Thanks and Enjoy,
Zaphod (dohpaZ)

[Kensington]

My first post, registered just so I could RE: to this post. I work for a LARGE software company. Everything we are doing now is using XML, and/or SOAP in some way. The flexibility makes all the difference.

Highly reccm'd, the DOM that Qt supports is good as well.

[LordCrush]

Sounds good to me


Then i'll have a reason to look closer on XML

Regards

- Lord Crush

[Mr Guy]

As long as you can explain what you did with very small words...

[high_jeeves]

XML is really super easy to understand... It would be great to change configuration into XML...

--Jeeves

[Nomad_]

A great way to merge an existing, custome showeq.conf with the "dist" version and merge any new lines, strip old lines would be a great thing.

[SeqTester]

so if it was switched to XML. Would the showeq.conf.dist get merged in when you update SEQ? That would be awsome. I have a few friends that always complain "This isn't doing this, or that's not on my SEQ!!" I ask "Did you put the new showeq.conf in?" well 90% of the time they say "No".

/cheer to the Dev team

[Pyzjn]

Go for it .

[Aurelius]

you da man. You're driving the bus so I guess we travelers should follow your instincts. If it doesn't work out, I guess we'd go back, no?
Keep on keeping on. ))

[kleenburn]

I vote go for it!

[S_B_R]

Why are the people voting "No" not posting their reasons for doing so? I'm very interested in why/how this could be a bad idea..? Did they just Vote with the mentality "Change = BAD!" Then read the intelligent comments supporting the idea, and thus realizing the merit of the idea?

I personally voted Yes, I think this would be an excellent improvement.

[bonkersbobcat]

I personally like the XML idea - easier to read and future ability to force syntax correctness with schemas.

Regardless of converting to XML or not how about this:

Have the client look at the config file first for settings. If a setting is not specified then go look in the config.dist file (or maybe rename it to config.default or whatever)

This way when new options are created in the config, they will be picked up automatically; this would elimintate the requirement to merge my config file with the new config.dist each time a new release comes out.

The idea being that I only have to configure the things that I want changed from the default distribution and that I am insulated from any new config settings that I haven't thought about yet.

[Just_A_Nut]

You never posted whether or not you were going to implement this, and also, will their be a tool to migrate current showeq.conf to the new xml format for people that have tweaked the shit out of the showeq.conf file?

Thanks,
Just_A_Nut

[Zaphod]

I'm going to move the configuration system over to XML. I'm just working through the details. I'm planning to support the following:

• Some form of manual migration for existing showeq.conf settings
• Common/Site configuration that can be overriden by a specific config file. So the non-tweakers don't have to constantly bring their showeq.conf replacement in line with the showeq.conf.dist replacement.
• A simple XML based language that should allow for some validation, yet be easy enough for joe seq to use.

Enjoy,
Zaphod (dohpaZ)

[Aurelius]

Zap,
I am one of the 'basic' Joe seq users. Not very knowledgable in programing and barely functioning in Linux (but learning.) I hope your transfer process (i.e., the stuff we the end poor ignorant user will need to know) will be spelled out in B I G simple letters?
And thanx for the good times so far ))