Comments on: A DSL for XML in PowerShell: New-XDocument http://huddledmasses.org/a-dsl-for-xml-in-powershell-new-xdocument/ You can do more than breathe for free... Fri, 03 Feb 2012 03:27:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Mark Dunlop http://huddledmasses.org/a-dsl-for-xml-in-powershell-new-xdocument/comment-page-1/#comment-214519 Mark Dunlop Fri, 26 Mar 2010 19:16:27 +0000 http://huddledmasses.org/?p=1406#comment-214519 The challenge is that to do a full implementation as advanced functions, with all the optional parameters, looks like over 1000 lines of code :) Your solution is looking more and more appealing by the second. Especially since I can just pick it up and use it. The challenge is that to do a full implementation as advanced functions, with all the optional parameters, looks like over 1000 lines of code :)

Your solution is looking more and more appealing by the second. Especially since I can just pick it up and use it.

]]> By: Joel 'Jaykul' Bennett http://huddledmasses.org/a-dsl-for-xml-in-powershell-new-xdocument/comment-page-1/#comment-214518 Joel 'Jaykul' Bennett Fri, 26 Mar 2010 19:09:46 +0000 http://huddledmasses.org/?p=1406#comment-214518 I haven't really looked at Saxonica in at least a couple of years, so it's safe to say I wasn't planning on doing anything with it ;) I haven’t really looked at Saxonica in at least a couple of years, so it’s safe to say I wasn’t planning on doing anything with it ;)

]]> By: Mark Dunlop http://huddledmasses.org/a-dsl-for-xml-in-powershell-new-xdocument/comment-page-1/#comment-214517 Mark Dunlop Fri, 26 Mar 2010 18:25:19 +0000 http://huddledmasses.org/?p=1406#comment-214517 Just looked at 4.3 - looks great. I've been building a load of code using Mike Kay's Saxonica libraries, and have recently been tempted to do a proper job of building some advanced functions. Reasoning behind that was the high level of standards compliance, especially wrt XQuery Since you're working in the same namespace, so to speak, I wonder if you'd had any thoughts on doing this. Just looked at 4.3 – looks great.

I’ve been building a load of code using Mike Kay’s Saxonica libraries, and have recently been tempted to do a proper job of building some advanced functions. Reasoning behind that was the high level of standards compliance, especially wrt XQuery

Since you’re working in the same namespace, so to speak, I wonder if you’d had any thoughts on doing this.

]]> By: Joel 'Jaykul' Bennett http://huddledmasses.org/a-dsl-for-xml-in-powershell-new-xdocument/comment-page-1/#comment-214448 Joel 'Jaykul' Bennett Thu, 04 Mar 2010 22:56:16 +0000 http://huddledmasses.org/?p=1406#comment-214448 Yay, another good idea! "Added in version 4.3":http://poshcode.org/1682 Yay, another good idea! Added in version 4.3

]]> By: Jason Archer http://huddledmasses.org/a-dsl-for-xml-in-powershell-new-xdocument/comment-page-1/#comment-214446 Jason Archer Thu, 04 Mar 2010 19:13:54 +0000 http://huddledmasses.org/?p=1406#comment-214446 Very cool idea! It would be nice if Format-XML could also take the path to an XML file. Very cool idea!

It would be nice if Format-XML could also take the path to an XML file.

]]> By: Joel 'Jaykul' Bennett http://huddledmasses.org/a-dsl-for-xml-in-powershell-new-xdocument/comment-page-1/#comment-214445 Joel 'Jaykul' Bennett Thu, 04 Mar 2010 17:08:52 +0000 http://huddledmasses.org/?p=1406#comment-214445 Yeah, that's a great idea. Consider it implemented! As of "version 4.2":http://poshcode.org/1681 the only commands that are *NOT* converted are ones which have a dash in them, *and* are _either_ a Cmdlet, a Function, or an ExternalScript (ie: a ps1 file in your path or specified by full name). Aliases, Applications, ScriptBlocks, and Functions or Scripts without 'verb-noun' syntax in their name will be ignored (and thus, treated as xml tags). Honestly, it was probably enough to check for "-" but since that's technically a legal character in xml node names (although I don't think I've ever seen it used), I figured I needed the combination :). I've updated the links above, and changed my example script to use @Get-ChildItem@ instead of the now disallowed @ls@ ;) Yeah, that’s a great idea. Consider it implemented!

As of version 4.2 the only commands that are NOT converted are ones which have a dash in them, and are either a Cmdlet, a Function, or an ExternalScript (ie: a ps1 file in your path or specified by full name). Aliases, Applications, ScriptBlocks, and Functions or Scripts without ‘verb-noun’ syntax in their name will be ignored (and thus, treated as xml tags). Honestly, it was probably enough to check for “-” but since that’s technically a legal character in xml node names (although I don’t think I’ve ever seen it used), I figured I needed the combination :) .

I’ve updated the links above, and changed my example script to use Get-ChildItem instead of the now disallowed ls ;)

]]> By: Josh Einstein http://huddledmasses.org/a-dsl-for-xml-in-powershell-new-xdocument/comment-page-1/#comment-214444 Josh Einstein Thu, 04 Mar 2010 14:49:36 +0000 http://huddledmasses.org/?p=1406#comment-214444 Wow, that on-the-fly implementation of unrecognized command names is very clever! But the potential conflicts (or more importantly, potential *future* conflicts) seems too dangerous to use in real scripts. I wonder if it might be possible to temporarily alter the command lookup table so that only full cmdlet names could be used in the XML DSL and any "short" names would always be treated as XElements. Wow, that on-the-fly implementation of unrecognized command names is very clever! But the potential conflicts (or more importantly, potential future conflicts) seems too dangerous to use in real scripts. I wonder if it might be possible to temporarily alter the command lookup table so that only full cmdlet names could be used in the XML DSL and any “short” names would always be treated as XElements.

]]>