[CMake] XML CMake ?

[Doug Henry]

I think XML would be the way to go.  It would be easy enough to format
the XML so that it is more human readable if needed, you could even
write a stylesheet to format it to the current syntax.  I think your
point about third-party integration is a good one, given a good xsd
you could easily write apps without knowning everything about the
cmake "language".  It would also be very easy to verify that a
cmake-xml file is sytactically correct using a cmake supplied schema
file, no cmake needed for that.  If there was a schema file, there are
many off the shelf xml editors that could be used already.


On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:20:39 +0100, Jorgen Bodde <solidstl at xs4all.nl> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> >  From a user standpoint I vastly prefer CMake syntax over XML. CMake
> > syntax is human readable, and XML is human readable but not pleasant to
> > read.
> 
> That's a matter of taste ofcourse. I never claimed CMake's syntax was
> worse then XML, I only opened up a discussion to see how others would
> feel about it. Like I said, there are tons of XML parsers out there, and
> my original statement was that it would open up the road for GUI config
> tools (like istool). I would consider making an XML based GUI tool that
> would make life easier and contribute something that way to the CMake
> community, but with the current language, no. I would not do that.
> 
> Problems with CMAKE syntax when parsing are:
> 1. You loose a lot of formatting when re-generating the code, with XML
> it is pretty well defined.
> 2. The CMake syntax is harder to parse with respect to XML that already
> gives you a tree which you can use and extract data elements from
> 
> Personally I have been working with ANT and WANT and Bakefile for a
> while, all XML flavor build tools. And my general opinion is, the
> learning curve is less steep because XML is already a known factor. My
> first hassle with CMake was that it was a language unknown to me,
> although I came to learn that most of the CMake syntax is easy once
> you're at it.
> 
> > engineering your application code, and little time engineering your
> > build system. Config and build problems are very relevant to
> > maintainability.
> 
> I agree. But the more complex a grammar gets, the more ways there are to
> do things. When that happens, people choose the easy and often
> unreadable way of doing things. For example C++ is both elegant and a
> curse when it comes to readability based on how long the developer
> spends on formatting. With XML there aren't that many possibilities
> 
> > built-up culture of applications for it.  That's great, as far as it
> > goes, but if you're afraid of writing a parser, in my arrogant opinion,
> > you're not a real programmer.
> 
> I wrote my share of parsers already, I am familiar with the techniques
> and possibilities. :-) XML is however the most common, readable, most
> transparent and widely available. So from a time / logical point of
> view, that would be the most logic choice.
> 
> But, I have the feeling I am getting flamed over something that was
> merely a question out of interest like; "would it be nice if ..." or
> "what do others think about it" .. If this didn't really came through as
> I meant it that's because I don't have a native English tongue.
> 
> If CMake has no plans for XML, that is fine by me. Sometimes it takes
> one person to get a new feature started when others only think it would
> be nice. If I take the blame (and flame) for asking this, so be it.
> Can't hurt to ask, right ??
> 
> > That last bit is meant to be humorous, if that doesn't come through.
> > I've sworn off emoticons for Lent.
> 
> I am glad you mentioned it, or I would have 'parsed' it correctly, but
> interpreted it wrong ;-)
> 
> - Jorgen
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CMake mailing list
> CMake at cmake.org
> http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
>