Re: Suggested dual human/binary interface for proc/devfs

[Bill Wendling]

Also sprach George Bonser:
} On Sun, 9 Apr 2000, Bill Wendling wrote:
} 
} > It may be wordy, but it is standard, parsers do exist for it, and you
} > don't have the fun of having 10 kagillion different file formats to
} > parse.
} > 
} > Sometimes the bleeding edge is a good thing.
} 
} There is no need to store it in XML, really, if data in /proc is
} presented in a standard way. It would be easy enough to convert that
} standard format to XML with a utility.  Imagine:
} 
Certainly. I merely mention it cause I'm an XML advocate (J/K). Actually,
it seemed the natural way, to me, of storing data which is heirarchical
in nature. One interesting thing might be the creationg of a filesystem
which is created according to an XML document.

} hmm, I just noticed in the course of that that there is a counter for
} recieve multicast but not one for transmit. Most likely to convert to XML
} one might consider a directory as a tag ... maybe something like:
} 
} <proc>
} <net>
} <dev>
} <interface>
} <eth0>
} <receive>
} bytes=21421
} packets=243
} ...
} </receive>

My guess is that `bytes' would be either another tag or an attribute of
`receive'. Perhaps this:

<proc>
	<directory name="net">
		<file name="dev">
			<field name="interface">
				<subfield name="eth0"/>
			</field>
			<field name="receive">
				<subfield name="bytes" value="21421"/>
			</field>
		</file>
	</directory>
</proc>

The major problem with doing config files in XML (even going beyond /proc
files into things like /etc/passwd, etc.) is that you get into
`political' debates. Everyone needs to agree on a standard naming/usage
convention.

Not an easy thing.

-- 
|| Bill Wendling			[e-mail]