I think it would be safe to stick with XML. I would support that.
Carl.
Kevin Smith wrote:
Robert Greig wrote:
On 26/01/07, Kevin Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm planning on writing this using pure YAML for
commons-configuration soonish
(over the weekend). My plan is to get this into
commons-configuration proper
since they already have a bug open on this
(http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CONFIGURATION-201).
I've looked at YAML briefly and we would still use xml for our java
broker deployments. Operate (i.e. support) teams are familiar with xml
and understand xml. I appreciate that may seem an odd comment to
people who have not worked extensively with operate teams. The yaml
native syntax is not exactly intuitive.
The config file format is not for our benefit but that of our users.
RG
So, I guess it boils down to do we want to use YAML or XML, then. My
own goal is to address the obstacle which is currently blocking me on
implementing SSL configuration, namely no configuration file
infrastructure inside the Java client. Whether that config file is in
YAML or XML doesn't matter that much to me.
If I had really, really had to pick, I'd pick XML for two reasons: 1)
we've already got XML config file support built in for the Java
broker, and 2) people are generally more familiar with XML than YAML.
I think we should pick one config file formatting language and use it
everywhere. Having YAML for the Java pieces and XML for C++ pieces
(would this also include the Python and Ruby clients?) is not where I
think we want to be.
I've already attached a patch to the JIRA for the Java broker changes.
Once we can agree on one or the other I'll be able to finish the Java
client work.
--Kevin
