Dmitriy,
I guess, you can find some reasons in this discussion :)
Best Regards,
Igor
On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 11:18 AM, Dmitriy Govorukhin <
dmitriy.govoruk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Why do you interpret the question as a necessity for action?
> In my first message, "Are there any reasons why ignite does not support
> yaml or json format for configuration? or some other popular format?"
>
> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 10:35 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org
> >
> wrote:
>
> > I generally agree with Andrey Gura. I do not think that the effort
> required
> > to implement another format for configuration justifies the means. Let's
> > stick to the Spring configuration.
> >
> > D.
> >
> > On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 10:10 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Andrey G, +1
> > >
> > >
> > > Andrey K,
> > >
> > > > json-schema
> > > It's a draft. XML schema is a mature standard.
> > >
> > > > eye fatigue
> > > Here is Ignite.NET config: <cacheConfiguration cacheMode='Replicated'
> > > name='myCache' />
> > > Equivalent JSON excerpt: "cacheConfiguration": { "cacheMode":
> > > "Replicated", "name": "myCache" }
> > > Enough said I guess :)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 12:48 AM, Andrey Gura <ag...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Guys,
> > > >
> > > > Spring is IoC and you can't offer any format that can replace
> Spring.
> > It
> > > > will just limited DSL.
> > > >
> > > > Once again. We have enough problems with main functionality. Why do
> you
> > > > want to focus on minor features?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > вт, 15 мая 2018 г., 23:26 Andrey Kuznetsov <stku...@gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > > > Pavel,
> > > > >
> > > > > One can use json-schema if necessary. Of course, XML is more
> powerful
> > > in
> > > > > many aspects, but produces more eye fatigue for humans. Of course,
> we
> > > are
> > > > > to stay with XML if switching to another configuration format
> > requires
> > > > > significant effort.
> > > > >
> > > > > BTW, first time I heard about JSON from [1] : " JSON is like XML,
> > > except
> > > > it
> > > > > doesn't suck ".
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://github.com/cajun-jsonapi/cajun-jsonapi/blob/
> > > > master/Readme.txt
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 2018-05-15 22:43 GMT+03:00 Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > JSON sucks for config files anyway, there are no comments, no
> > > schemas,
> > > > > > quotes are required around keys, etc
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just answer one question: what issue are we trying to solve?
> > > > > > XML is not a problem IMO, complexity of our config is.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 8:00 PM, Igor Sapego <isap...@apache.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > How are you going to translate this YAML config to Spring
> config?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How would you deal with something like [1]?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1] -
> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
> > > > > > > platforms/cpp/odbc-test/config/queries-ssl-32.xml
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 7:10 PM, Pavel Kovalenko <
> > > jokse...@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Igor,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Just get one of the config samples and translate it directly
> to
> > > > YAML:
> > > > > > > > XML - https://pastebin.com/wtQXXq8f
> > > > > > > > YAML - https://pastebin.com/akGu3e81
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2018-05-15 18:49 GMT+03:00 Igor Sapego <isap...@apache.org>:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Guys, if you think the YAML or JSON would be better, how
> > about
> > > > > > > > > you provide us a brief example of how such configs are
> going
> > to
> > > > > > > > > look, so we can compare and see, if this ever have any
> sense.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 4:20 PM, Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > > > > > > > > ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Andrey Kuznetsov.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
