I can tell you that some people I work with would use property files for everything under the sun if they could...
Gary On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 9:29 AM Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > I agree with this. IMO the only configuration syntaxes we should support > are those we can implement with no dependencies. At the moment that is JSON > and Properties (Ugh!). I would love to deprecate properties but I know that > is a non-starter since we didn’t support them for years and were constantly > asked for it. > > Ralph > > > On Nov 29, 2023, at 5:14 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > I think the overall goal should be to have no optional dependencies, no > > surprises. I personally hope to never force YAML on anyone. > > > > Gary > > > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 6:51 AM Piotr P. Karwasz <piotr.karw...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Hi all, > >> > >> I have been using a modularized sandbox project to test Log4j and > >> optional dependencies are a nightmare. > >> > >> Small example: if I use Log4j API in my project and I add: > >> > >> requires org.apache.logging.log4j; > >> > >> then when I run the app, the JVM will automatically add `log4j-api` to > >> the boot layer. > >> > >> It will also add `log4j-core`, since it provides a service that > >> `log4j-api` uses. > >> > >> However it will **not** load `jackson-datatype-yaml`, because it is an > >> **optional** dependency of `log4j-core` and provides no services > >> `log4j-core` is interested in. The user must go to the additional pain > >> of specifying `--add-modules` or the application developer must add a > >> bogus `requires` statement. > >> > >> Therefore I would propose to: > >> > >> * move the YAML configuration factory to a separate module and delete > >> one of the JSON configuration factories (the one that uses Jackson). > >> > >> What do you think? > >> > >
