On 2001.01.04 Kervin Pierre wrote:
>
> hello,
>
> Would XML be considered human readable enough for /proc files? If not,
> how about a /xproc filesystem ( maybe as a kernel build option ), same
> as /proc but uses an xml grammer for reporting.
> I can see tons of uses for this, no more 'fuzzy' parsing for gui
> configuration tools, resource monitors, etc.
>
> ?
>
> just thinking aloud really,
More aloud thinkin...
I have seen some times this thread appear on the list. One of the
problems: you will have to force drivers to register in two file
systems...
Perhaps there are tools yet to do what I'm thinkin of: a ghost file
system that just mirrors /proc, changing format of output.
Say you clone the procfs to a fake fs driver (for example,
procfs.xml) that just translates each fs access system call to
/fproc/xml/path/to/file_or_dir (fproc==formatted proc)
to
/proc/path/to/file_or_dir
reads its contents and reformats them to give the desired output
(now thinkin on read-only, main people interest seems to be
in syntax-ing the out of /proc).
So actual /proc stays, not breaking anything, and theres a way
to write proc info formatters.
Even there could be many common code between all the possible
procfs.XXXX things to ease maintenance.
--
J.A. Magallon $> cd pub
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] $> more beer
Linux werewolf 2.2.19-pre6 #1 SMP Wed Jan 3 21:28:10 CET 2001 i686
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
