We used to have deployment descriptors written in Java.
Remember EJB 1.0? Everyone hated them.
Reza Rahman wrote on 07/22/11 04:01 PM:
> 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
>>
>>
>