Would it be possible to externalize the repoinit files? I feel like that would resolve a lot of the issues if you could instead reference a repoinit file in the native format vs. embedding it into the JSON (which I agree is a pain to read.
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 11:49 AM Robert Munteanu <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 2020-05-08 at 17:47 +0200, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > > It's documented :) > > > > > https://github.com/apache/sling-org-apache-sling-feature/blob/master/docs/features.md#feature-file-format > > > > And yes, integrating a preprocessor in every place where we today > > read > > feature files is another major undertaking. > > I was thinking more about having a Maven plugin running in the build > before the slingfeature-maven-plugin starts to do its magic. This way > there is no actual change to the sling feature model tooling. > > > > And I think its a bad idea to support more than one format. > > But yes, a major undertaking and possibly a bad idea. > > Thanks, > Robert > > > > > Regards > > Carsten > > > > On 08.05.2020 17:44, Robert Munteanu wrote: > > > Ok, probably not worth the effort :-) > > > > > > Thanks for the information about JSMin-style comments, I was not > > > aware > > > of that. I guess the downside is that IDEs/editors will complain, > > > but > > > that's a choice we can make. > > > > > > Thinking out loud - if we generate the JSON files from another > > > format > > > before passing them over to the feature launcher/analyser then we > > > would > > > be safe. But that's also not very easy I guess. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Robert > > > > > > On Fri, 2020-05-08 at 17:36 +0200, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > > > > It would be a significant effort, basically rewriting everything > > > > including all modules, extensions and tooling. > > > > > > > > Not sure if that is really worth the effort. > > > > > > > > Repoinit is a little bit of a pain, I agree. But I don't think > > > > this > > > > minor use case warrants such a dramatic change. > > > > > > > > For comments, you can use JSmin style comments (like mentioned on > > > > jsonnet), so I don't consider this an issue. > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > Carsten > > > > > > > > On 08.05.2020 17:28, Robert Munteanu wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > I keep thinking about how the feature files would look like in > > > > > a > > > > > different format. The main driver is the way repoinit > > > > > statements > > > > > look > > > > > at the moment. Comments are also a bit awkward, even though > > > > > possible in > > > > > JSON. > > > > > > > > > > I was looking at Jsonnet [1], which is a superset of JSON with > > > > > lots > > > > > of > > > > > bells and whistles, including comments and multiline strings. > > > > > > > > > > But irrespective of format - Jsonnet, YAML, or something else - > > > > > what > > > > > would it take to add another input format to the feature model? > > > > > Is > > > > > it > > > > > something can be easily plugged in or would it require a > > > > > significant > > > > > rewrite? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Robert > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]: https://jsonnet.org/ > > > > > > >
