I agree - I don't think ini is a good tool for defining object graphs
- I just also think that most of our users won't want to define object
graphs in our file =)
I think most users will view the ini section as basically setting some
properties to get things operating correctly. And I don't think
that's a bad thing. Simplest tool for the job.
On Aug 29, 2008, at 3:16 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
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
