Bill,
I guess I'd like to discuss this more after we do see some more tangible
interest in the EG at least :-). Something as pervasive as this should
garner interest/input from a decent number of EG members :-).
By definition, decoupling from XML as the "canonical" configuration
format to something more Java centric and more readily translatable to
other formats allows for more choice/flexibility. I also disagree with
Pete in that I do think a Java/OO-centric format is readily intuitive
and compelling to Java developers. As you mentioned, a revamp would also
be a good opportunity to remove some of the old cruft and allow for
things like namespace based flexibility, better support for XML
attributes, overlaying vendor extension/plug-in configuration and so on.
For me personally, the option to write configuration in pure Java is
particularly tantalizing. It allows for possibilities like
programmatically changing configuration at deployment time (Servlet 3
does the very beginning of this in a very ad-hoc fashion). Just like JPA
2 criteria queries vs. JPQL, it is also more type-safe and arguably more
readable/maintainable.
Each alternative format similarly has it's own strengths -- JSON for
simplicity/brevity, property files for familiarity/simplicity/brevity, etc.
Cheers,
Reza
On 7/22/2011 5:31 PM, Bill Shannon wrote:
> 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! :-)
>>
>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1518/3781 - Release Date: 07/22/11
>
>