Now that I think about about it, because Spring is so XML based, I would
much rather prefer to use json to define Spring configs too (assuming IDEs
would integrate with this nicely as well - click on names, jump to source
code, etc). I wonder if I should build that and contribute it into Spring
3.x. That might be cool.
For me this is about the best tool for the job - I believe the
.ini/.properties approach is less than ideal for defining object graphs, and
with the advent of json or yaml, so is XML as far as I'm concerned. I just
think think there are better, cleaner (less verbose) ways...
That being said, JSecurity configs are pretty small object graphs, so its
not that big of an issue for our project - I'm just thinking in general.
But if it is something that end-users want, I'd want to support it. If no
one wants it, that's cool too.
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Jeremy Haile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
