[RFC] SRS Section 1

James Robertson jwrober at linuxfromscratch.org
Tue Feb 1 20:10:03 PST 2005


Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> For example, many people would like to see the tool be able to build a 
> dependency graph and control the profile execution based on that. A 
> simple list of commands will never have that ability, at least not in a 
> maintainable fashion.
+1
> 
> While other formats can also provide this, XML also has already-existing 
> tools for validating that a document conforms to a given design, which 
> is very valuable in a tool like this. Yes, XML is harder to edit by 
> hand, and more verbose and other formats. Each of us needs to decide 
> whether the additional effort required to edit/maintain the profile is 
> more or less valuable than the time savings generated when the profile 
> is run (many, many times over).
+1
> 
> For that matter, I have long envisioned that the protocol between the 
> client and the server would _also_ be XML (and previous discussions 
> headed in that direction as well); there's no particular reason not to 
> do so (there is not a large amount of communication, so bandwidth 
> consumption is not a concern), and it falls right into XML's primary 
> purpose: descriptive data communication. If you build your own protocol, 
> you have to deal with parsing/validation, versioning, serialization and 
> deserialization of data elements, etc. (and that's assuming you use a 
> text-based protocol... if you use a binary protocol, you also get to 
> deal with endianness, word length, etc.)

Isn't that what SOAP does?

James
-- 
James Robertson -- jwrober at linuxfromscratch dot org
Reg. Linux User -- #160424 -- http://counter.li.org
Reg. LFS User   -- #6981   -- http://www.linuxfromscratch.org
LFS Bugzilla Maintainer    -- http://{blfs-}bugs.linuxfromscratch.org



More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list