Personally, when I need a config file, I stick with the classic this = that using Config::General. One downside of this, however, is nested elements. That can be pulled off a bit easier with an XML style config.
So, IMO, it depends on your needs :)
--
A conclusion is simply the place where someone got tired of thinking. | [reply] [d/l] |
I'm a fan of just using do 'config_file';.
It's easy, doesn't need you to make a decision about which of the Config:: modules to use, and you can make it as simple or as complex as you like.
If the information in this post is inaccurate, or just plain wrong, don't just downvote - please post explaining what's wrong.
That way everyone learns.
| [reply] [d/l] |
I don't like ini style, because I usually need deeply nested structure; so my preferred modules are Config::General and XML::Simple. In my opinion, XML::Simple is more versatile than Config::General, but more prone to errors. The best thing would be to have these modules with validation a la AppConfig.
Ciao, Valerio
| [reply] |
i'm a big fan of YAML
~Particle *accelerates*
| [reply] [d/l] |
I like perl-files the best, putting the configuration in a hash and either do or use it.
It's just the most flexible way of configuring a perl programm, IMHO.
regards,
tomte
Hlade's Law:
If you have a difficult task, give it to a lazy person --
they will find an easier way to do it.
| [reply] |