named.conf file in xml

Peter DrakeUnderkoffler pcd at xinupro.com
Thu Mar 16 18:41:11 UTC 2006


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I would hope that this would simply be an option to those who actually
desire it and not a standard.  If all the administrative tools were available
to easily view and modify XML files, then this could be a more wide
spread solution.  When it hits the fan, needing a GUI or
specific tools in the trenches at 3:00am can hurt from my experience.  Like anything,
tools have their place.

Peter DrakeUnderkoffler
Xinupro, LLC
617-834-2352



Jeff Lightner wrote:
> 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. :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFEGbFHl+lekZRM55oRAk5uAJ0aUJrUOUpV7OHD2dFYWgZEM34J2gCg0d+A
2ZFfwfiQSpMM+hNnx944j/E=
=yplv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the bind-users mailing list