[Asterisk-Users] Re: What about a higher level configurationlanguage

[Benjamin on Asterisk Mailing Lists]

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 14:14:20 -0500, Steven Critchfield
<critch at basesys.com> wrote:
> I agree that I don't think XML is appropriate. XML seems to always be
> pulled out for information storage just like a similar group who thinks
> all php apps should store data in mysql. I understand it is nice and
> easy to throw the data into a database table or a XML structure as there
> is plenty of tools that will handle the parsing and reading of the data
> for you. I just don't think either one is up to the expressiveness
> needed for the extensions.conf file.

You seem to misunderstand the issue I was raising.

The issue is about proper architecture, layered architeture.

If you want to build a house, you start with the basement not the roof.

Whatever the low level storage may be, we better sort that out first
before we design something on top. Confusing the current
scripting/config language for a low level storage layer will have dire
consequences in the future. Asterisk should be freed from being
dependent on the current *.conf presentation. It should be sitting on
top of a true low level storage layer that will allow equally
coexisting multiple configuration languages to be plugged in on top.

And yes, it is quite possible that the low level storage layer which
is best for storing the dialplan is different from what is best for
the remainder of the configuration data. I agree that we shouldn't
make it the same simply for the sake of uniformity, which is what we
appear to be doing right now.

rgds
benjk

-- 
Sunrise Telephone Systems, 9F Shibuya Daikyo Bldg., 1-13-5 Shibuya,
Tokyo, Japan.

NB: Spam filters in place. Messages unrelated to the * mailing lists
may get trashed.