Re: [Oroborus-user] Proposed config file format.

[Martin Hedenfalk]

On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 05:41:05PM +0200, Stefan Pfetzing wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> * Martin Hedenfalk <address@hidden> [020802 17:13]:
> [snip]
> > I would suggest a more "flat" structure. For example, the "ClickToFocus"
> > option should be in the "root" section and not under
> > General->Focus->ClickToFocus (I assume there can only be one ClickToFocus
> > option anyway, one Focus sub-section and one General section).
> Hm, I don't agree to you on that point, ClickToFocus (also known as
> FocusFollowsMouse=False) is IMHO correct under General->Focus->ClickToFocus.

Well, the point I was trying to make was that there is no need for the
sections/subsections. It only makes the configuration file more complicated
than it has to be (even if libdotconf handles it fine).

If I write my own config file just to override the ClickToFocus option I
must remember in which section/subsection the option should be, instead of
just writing "ClickToFocus No". A user will however most likely edit a
default configuration file, so that might not be a problem. Anyway, all
subsection makes the configuration file confusing to read.

> > A flat structure is also easier for other parsers/writers, such as a
> > configuration frontend.
> Well I don't think a flat structure would be better *and* the parser is almost
> done yet. (I think you didn't look at libdotconf, which makes the writing of a
> parser really easy. I don't know if and how you could use the lib oroborus
> will use for reading its config for oroborus-config, but that would be a
> starting point. For Perl I would use perlxs but with python, I don't know.)

Yes, I know about libdotconf, and since it's a C library, it's easier to
write the parser myself than to create bindings for Python (or whatever
scripting language is used).

regards / martin

-- 
Martin Hedenfalk <address@hidden>
  Things should be done as simple as possible, but not simpler.