[lkml]   [2001]   [Jan]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: RFC: /xproc -> /proc files in xml grammer?

    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

    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)



    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 $> 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
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 12:52    [W:0.022 / U:3.732 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site