Let's say the parsing-to-object-graph logic was already written - e.g. in
another Apache licensed open source framework, and we just used it. What
would you think then?
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 2:48 PM, Jeremy Haile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My fear is that the JSON syntax is bordering on writing our own "Spring
> framework config" - I'd rather standardize on being able to embed spring
> than invent our own syntax that no one is familiar with. I'm not against
> options, but personally I think most users will be fine either using the
> simple INI (properties-looking) format or just using Spring for more complex
> situations.
>
> J
>
>
>
> On Aug 29, 2008, at 2:40 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>
> Hi JSecurity Community,
>>
>> I'd like to get your thoughts on something.
>>
>> Currently, JSecurity's only text-based configuration option (in web.xml or
>> jsecurity.ini) is the INI file format.
>>
>> This format works well enough and seems clean, but it doesn't particularly
>> handle object graph definitions all that well. But JSecurity
>> configuration
>> is essentially just that - an object graph of the JSecurity
>> SecurityManager
>> and all of its dependencies (realms, etc).
>>
>> JSON might be a better format for object graph definitions, and might be
>> more succinct than even INI. Would it be worth having this as the
>> preferred
>> configuration syntax instead?
>>
>> Consider the following definitions:
>>
>> INI:
>>
>> bar = some.domain.package.Bar
>> bar.name = ABar
>> bar.amount = 50.00
>>
>> foo = some.domain.package.Foo
>> foo.something = Some value
>> foo.bar = $bar
>> foo.anotherThing = 52
>>
>> JSON:
>>
>> foo: some.domain.package.Foo {
>> something: Some value,
>> bar: some.domain.package.Bar {
>> name: ABar,
>> amount: 50.00
>> },
>> anotherThing: 52
>> }
>>
>> What do you think? Which one would you prefer?
>>
>> --
>> Les
>>
>
>
