Hello! Maybe we should take .Net configuration as a standard, extend it to JSON and YAML?
<goog_787531833> https://apacheignite-net.readme.io/docs/configuration It should be fairly robust, and there's much less boilerplate. Regards, -- Ilya Kasnacheev 2018-05-15 16:09 GMT+03:00 Pavel Kovalenko <jokse...@gmail.com>: > +1 to Dmitriy G. proposal. > > Since we're moving Ignite towards outside of Java world, we should > definitely care about config usability for users who are not familiar with > Java/Spring. > If we take a look at any of our XML-configs, we can see a lot of > boilerplate like "<bean class="">", "<property name="">" - terms which say > nothing to users outside of Java world. > When I see such configs my eyes are filled with bloody tears. > > I think we should really consider YAML as our additional approach to > configure Ignite with full replacement instead of XML in future. > Comparing to XML, YAML is significantly more human-readable and lightweight > format and has stable Java library to parse and translate config files to > Java objects without extra-magic. > > We can find a lot of famous projects which are using YAML: Apache Flink, > Apache Storm/Heron and one of the our main rivals - Apache Cassandra. > > Some of the projects use simple <property>=<name> config form (Kafka, > Spark), some of the projects use their own YAML-like format (Aerospike, > Tarantool), but it's really difficult to find such project which has so > heavy config as us (maybe VoltDB). > > > > > > > 2018-05-15 14:02 GMT+03:00 Andrey Gura <ag...@apache.org>: > > > Actually sometimes users ask about JSON configuration (e.g. was PR in > > vertx-ignite project). But it's non trivial task because it will > > require development of some DSL (or set of DSL's) and will make adding > > new configuration elements some kind of pain while we should be > > focused on basic functionality: data grid, persistence, etc. > > > > I just believe that configuration format is not so important aspect > > and this task is out of product scope. > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 12:56 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan > > <dsetrak...@apache.org> wrote: > > > I still do not understand *why* do we need to add additional formats > for > > > the configuration. Can you please show me some users on the user@ list > > or > > > stack overflow who asked for it? I just want to make sure that if we > are > > > creating work for ourselves, then someone actually needs it. > > > > > > D. > > > > > > On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 12:41 PM, Igor Sapego <isap...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > >> I don't think we need to add new formats on server side as there may > > >> be a lot of different formats for different clients. On the other > hand, > > >> supporting additional formats may be non trivial and error-prone, > while > > >> adding little to a user experience. > > >> > > >> For clients, I see no problem in adding for example JSON -> XML > > >> converter on client side, if JS folks need it. > > >> > > >> For servers, adding another configuration format just to make it more > > >> familiar to users with no Java background seems unreasonable to me > > >> as well, as there still going to be Java class names in configuration > > >> and Spring approach in general. > > >> > > >> What will change is a XML formatting is going to change to JSON > > >> formatting, which has no much sense to me, as everyone know XML. > > >> It is Spring approach what can be confusing to non-Java users, and > > >> it is not going to change regardless of format. > > >> > > >> Best Regards, > > >> Igor > > >> > > >> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 12:15 PM, Dmitriy Govorukhin < > > >> dmitriy.govoruk...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> > Folks, > > >> > > > >> > I guess when work on a thin client will be completed, we get more > > >> newcomers > > >> > who use go/python/php/js. > > >> > And we can do ignite more friendly for them, support familiar > formats > > for > > >> > configuration. > > >> > > > >> > On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 12:13 PM, Dmitry Pavlov < > > dpavlov....@gmail.com> > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > Hi Igniters, > > >> > > > > >> > > In general I aggree with adding new format, e.g. JSON is more > > popular > > >> > than > > >> > > XML for new applications. > > >> > > > > >> > > In the same time I've never heard that user asked this in the user > > >> list. > > >> > Or > > >> > > did I missed such topics? > > >> > > > > >> > > Sincerely, > > >> > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > >> > > > > >> > > вт, 15 мая 2018 г. в 9:31, Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org>: > > >> > > > > >> > > > Dmitriy, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > We don't need to support different config formats on server in > > order > > >> to > > >> > > add > > >> > > > that to thin clients. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Thin client protocol provides a way to create a cache with > custom > > >> > config > > >> > > > [1]. > > >> > > > It is up to thin client library authors to use any config format > > they > > >> > > like > > >> > > > and then convert it into protocol-defined format. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > C# thin client uses custom format, for example, not Spring. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > [1] > > >> > > > > > >> > > > https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/binary-client- > > >> > > protocol-cache-configuration-operations#section-op_cache_ > > >> > > create_with_configuration > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 7:54 PM, Ivan Rakov < > > ivan.glu...@gmail.com> > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Dmitry, > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > We rely on Spring Framework when we start Ignite node from XML > > >> > > > > configuration. Spring doesn't easily support another formats > of > > >> > > > > configuration files. I think, the main reason for this is > > built-in > > >> > > > ability > > >> > > > > to validate configuration via XML Schema. We can surely hack > > this > > >> > > around > > >> > > > (I > > >> > > > > bet there are existing libraries for configuring Spring with > > JSON), > > >> > > but I > > >> > > > > don't think that anyone suffered from inability to statically > > >> > configure > > >> > > > > Ignite with json/yaml. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Regarding thin clients: makes sense. I suppose necessary > > mappings > > >> > will > > >> > > be > > >> > > > > implemented as a part of thin client. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Best Regards, > > >> > > > > Ivan Rakov > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > On 14.05.2018 18:58, Dmitriy Govorukhin wrote: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> Hi, Igniters! > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> As far as I know, many people work on a thin client for > > different > > >> > > > language > > >> > > > >> (go,js,php...). > > >> > > > >> Are there any reasons why ignite does not support yaml or > json > > >> > format > > >> > > > for > > >> > > > >> configuration? or some other popular format? > > >> > > > >> In future, it can help to integrate with thin clients, for > > >> example, > > >> > js > > >> > > > >> client may want to dynamic cache start, he passes cache > > >> > configuration > > >> > > > (in > > >> > > > >> native format, for js it will json) through TCP, Ignite node > > >> unwrap > > >> > > and > > >> > > > >> remap to java representation and dynamic start cache. > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >
