Re: [Evolution] Issue with formatting of gconf files.

[les <hlhowell pacbell net>]

On Fri, 2011-02-04 at 09:30 +0000, Pete Biggs wrote:
> >     HTML code is bad to begin with due to its fundamental formatting, but
> > leaving out linefeeds, tabs, and spaces just makes it worse.  Would you
> > like reading a book with no punctuation, no paragraphs, and lack of
> > structure?  Yet I see lots of that kind of documentation, and even more
> > code like that.  This is not furthering the profession, nor is it
> > helpful.
> >
> > With that said, here is a snippet from the gconf stuff for evolution:
> >
> > Directly from the file:
>
> DON'T PLAY WITH THE GCONF FILES.  They are NOT meant for human
> consumption.  They are machine readable XML files formatted in a way
> that is most convenient for a machine to read. The only reason
> the .gconf hierarchy exists is as a dump of the current config between
> sessions & the only reason they are text based XML is that it is an
> extensible standard that is easily parsable. It matters not one jot to
> the machine if there are line breaks or tabs in the XML to make it look
> pretty - all it does is to take up extra space.
>
> > How many of you can read and understand this bit of code?
>
> My gconfd can and that's all that matters.  They are NOT text config
> files like /etc/yum.conf.
>
> > I especially dislike the ########## ##### # localhost localdomain
> > filename.
>
> It's not a file name, it's a UID - the clue is in the bit before it
> which says "uid=".  It's a unique identifier for, in this case, a group
> calendars.
>
> >   This has no significance to the job being accomplished.  As
> > much as I rail against "self documenting code", this is just beyond
> > useless.  It smacks of trying to use obfuscation for security, which has
> > been proven over and over to not aid security.  Other than that it has
> > no value, no significance and adds no real value to the process being
> > described.
>
> Since these are uids are never externalised by the program, there is no
> significance, or value, in giving it a human readable name.
>
>
> > But putting an entire page of a book of code in one line is
> > unforgivable.  I write converters between systems, changing hardware,
> > software platforms and instrument capabilities.  I would be embarrassed
> > to show something like this to one of my customers, moreover it would
> > probably result in my never being hired again.
>
> The fact that you seem not to grasp the usage or significance of Gconf
> and are willing to indulge in a rant without researching what you are
> ranting about would make me very worried if I were one of your
> customers.
>
>
> >     Cleaned up just a bit, the use of the code becomes clearer.  But it
> > also uses two forms of HTML controls, both the <header>...</header> and
> > the <header />.  Both are of course legal and useful in some contexts,
> > but it is usually preferable to maintain consistency.
>
> IT'S NOT HTML.  Not everything that has <..> in it is HTML.  And both
> those contructs you mention are used consistently AND properly in the
> XML snippet you are quoting.
>
> > If you read all the way to here, thank you.  If you disagree, that is
> > OK, but remember that one day you will have to support code written in
> > one block that is over 3000 characters long (I have already seen that on
> > some web pages.)
>
> It's NOT code either - it's XML.  It's a data description language.
>
> P.
XML means eXtended Meta Language.  It is a programming language with
structure and meaning, and it is extensible.  You can call it a data
description language, and that means it standardizes the representation
of information. It is a coding language for the representation of data.

And it is still garbage when it is presented like garbage.  Yes, I can
figure it out, I can even hand edit it, but not with the pathetic tools
offered, and moreover it is NOT a calendar.

Regards,
Les H