Re: [avrdude-dev] Re: Avrdude GUI and Avr Studio Plugin

[Doug Brown]

>> Alas, it looks like it's C++ (only).
So is wxWidgets.

>> That would mean to convert AVRDUDE into C++.
Only the main.c (main.cpp rather) and the GUI part would be C++. All the
library parts would be called by their C functions.

>> Not a bad thing as such (it would allow to implement a lot of things much
cleaner)
True.
>> The key point is to define a good, usable, and extensible structure, i.e.
an XSD schema the XML file(s) can be validated against.
TinyXML++ can't handle schemas per say, but if as you said the schema is
just for prevalidation it might be alright.

>> It's correct that the AVRDUDE application "in the field" does not have to
validate the XML file, but during the development, an XML schema should be
there the file can be validated against.
Won't every field read from the configuration file will have to be validated
every time it's loaded (just not against the schema)? I mean, if you're
loading an element (that you know about; e.g. part description), you'll
expect the element name to be of a predefined set and that value field
contains data of the same type as the variable it will be assigned to...
>> If we continue allocating entries "ad hoc"
Do you suggest the current conf file elements be translated into something
neater? Or just for future additions?

On 12 May 2010 04:30, Joerg Wunsch <address@hidden> wrote:

> As Weddington, Eric wrote:
>
> > > TinyXML++ at a glance looks like it might do the trick.
> >
> > That's good to know. :-) Thanks for the recommendation.
>
> Alas, it looks like it's C++ (only).  That would mean to convert
> AVRDUDE into C++.  Not a bad thing as such (it would allow to
> implement a lot of things much cleaner), but another truckload of
> work.
>
> > > As to
> > > converting to XML (the actual avrdude.conf and the
> > > read_conf() is all; right?), that shouldn't be hard at all.
> >
> > Totally agreed.
>
> The key point is to define a good, usable, and extensible structure,
> i.e. an XSD schema the XML file(s) can be validated against.  It's
> correct that the AVRDUDE application "in the field" does not have to
> validate the XML file, but during the development, an XML schema
> should be there the file can be validated against.  If we continue
> allocating entries "ad hoc" (i.e. the way it has been done in
> avrdude.conf's grammar), after only a short period of time, we'll end
> up combining the mess of the current avrdude.conf with the bloat of
> XML.  It's not there were no examples of that kind of mess, and we
> don't have to walk very far away to see them...
>
> --
> cheers, J"org               .-.-.   --... ...--   -.. .  DL8DTL
>
> http://www.sax.de/~joerg/                        NIC: JW11-RIPE
> Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
>
>  _______________________________________________
> avrdude-dev mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avrdude-dev
>