It would be neat to support both. JSON is somewhat becoming a new standard (and much more readable) way to configure or look at data. If there could be support for both, we can handle legacy, but begin to appeal to newer configuration style files that are becoming more comonly accepted as "the norm".
Jeff
On Jul 22, 2011, at 3:31 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! :-)
>>
>