Ok, good, you're not *all* on vacation! :-)
Converting from our existing XML to JSON doesn't seem like a big improvement.
Is there something like XML Schema for JSON?
I assume the format of these files isn't a big issue for anyone using an IDE.
Are you trying to address the people who *don't* use an IDE? Would it be
enough to provide tools that convert JSON to XML? Perhaps a maven plugin?
Jeff Genender wrote on 07/22/11 02:16 PM:
> Now now… there is interest ;-) Its July and lots of holiday going on… so be nice and understanding ;-)
>
> Im pretty high on the JSON stuff. This is gaining traction and becoming a much more readable format. It would be nice to see a paradigm shift and begin using some of the more friendlier data formats.
>
> There is some interest, see? ;-)
>
> Jeff
>
> On Jul 22, 2011, at 3:09 PM, Bill Shannon wrote:
>
>> Reza Rahman wrote on 07/22/11 01:59 PM:
>>> Bill,
>>>
>>> I guess it's a little disheartening that no one else on the alias is
>>> chiming in on this - not sure if this is just that boring or that they
>>> are judiciously biding their time :-).
>>
>> Ya, with this little interest here, it's not clear that it's worth
>> making any of the proposed changes.
>>
>>> Anyways, would it help much that this approach might open the doorway to
>>> 100% XML free, Java based configuration down the line or that it greases
>>> the wheels for other possibilities like JSON or property file based DDs?
>>
>> I don't see why we need more ways of doing the same thing. You need to
>> convince me that any of these is so much better than what we already have
>> that it's worth doing.
>>
>>> It also helps make configuring CDI style DI easier for any managed bean...
>>
>> And that seems good.
>>
>>> To be honest though, I think just getting some kind of CDI XML in Java
>>> EE 7 would be a good accomplishment in the scheme of things. I've never
>>> been a proponent of making big changes in the standard without some
>>> implementation precedent. If we defer the general overhaul of Java EE DD
>>> to Java EE 8, this does give us (and hopefully others) a little more
>>> room to do some "bleeding edge" implementation work on our own terms. As
>>> far as you can see, there is nothing in the standard that stops us from
>>> doing that, right?
>>
>> Right. I think it's fine for CDI to blaze the trail here and we can
>> consider following their lead in EE 8.
>>
>> But only if I see more interest in this expert group! :-)
>