I'd think that if the jar footprint was minimal and we made it
optional, that's fine. I just think that INI is probably sufficient
and simpler to understand for a large majority of users, so I'd like
to see that stay the standard for examples, example apps, etc.
On Aug 29, 2008, at 2:51 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
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
