Yep, that's true. But because we have a Configuration and WebConfiguration
interface, no one is really constrained per se - anyone can implement any
format/parser they wish - even XML if someone really wanted that ;)
Although at the moment, we haven't written anything other than .ini parsing,
so the only constraint is that other options aren't readily available in our
distribution...
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> That's an argument for having a simple config system available for novice
> users and for good documentation, not for constraining the set of ways
> people can configure.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>
> On Aug 29, 2008, at 12:50 PM, Jeremy Haile wrote:
>
> So that it's simple for users to understand and people don't get confused
>> on what they're supposed to use to get started.
>>
>>
>> On Aug 29, 2008, at 3:48 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>
>> I like the JSON syntax.
>>>
>>> Why does the project need to standardize on a few configuration
>>> mechanisms?
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Alan
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 29, 2008, at 11:48 AM, Jeremy Haile 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
