Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 4 Jan 2001 00:38:50 +0100 | From | "J . A . Magallon" <> | Subject | Re: 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 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:jamagallon@able.es $> 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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |