I don't think we need to add new formats on server side as there may be a lot of different formats for different clients. On the other hand, supporting additional formats may be non trivial and error-prone, while adding little to a user experience.
For clients, I see no problem in adding for example JSON -> XML converter on client side, if JS folks need it. For servers, adding another configuration format just to make it more familiar to users with no Java background seems unreasonable to me as well, as there still going to be Java class names in configuration and Spring approach in general. What will change is a XML formatting is going to change to JSON formatting, which has no much sense to me, as everyone know XML. It is Spring approach what can be confusing to non-Java users, and it is not going to change regardless of format. Best Regards, Igor On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 12:15 PM, Dmitriy Govorukhin < dmitriy.govoruk...@gmail.com> wrote: > Folks, > > I guess when work on a thin client will be completed, we get more newcomers > who use go/python/php/js. > And we can do ignite more friendly for them, support familiar formats for > configuration. > > On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 12:13 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi Igniters, > > > > In general I aggree with adding new format, e.g. JSON is more popular > than > > XML for new applications. > > > > In the same time I've never heard that user asked this in the user list. > Or > > did I missed such topics? > > > > Sincerely, > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > вт, 15 мая 2018 г. в 9:31, Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org>: > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > We don't need to support different config formats on server in order to > > add > > > that to thin clients. > > > > > > Thin client protocol provides a way to create a cache with custom > config > > > [1]. > > > It is up to thin client library authors to use any config format they > > like > > > and then convert it into protocol-defined format. > > > > > > C# thin client uses custom format, for example, not Spring. > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/binary-client- > > protocol-cache-configuration-operations#section-op_cache_ > > create_with_configuration > > > > > > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 7:54 PM, Ivan Rakov <ivan.glu...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Dmitry, > > > > > > > > We rely on Spring Framework when we start Ignite node from XML > > > > configuration. Spring doesn't easily support another formats of > > > > configuration files. I think, the main reason for this is built-in > > > ability > > > > to validate configuration via XML Schema. We can surely hack this > > around > > > (I > > > > bet there are existing libraries for configuring Spring with JSON), > > but I > > > > don't think that anyone suffered from inability to statically > configure > > > > Ignite with json/yaml. > > > > > > > > Regarding thin clients: makes sense. I suppose necessary mappings > will > > be > > > > implemented as a part of thin client. > > > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Ivan Rakov > > > > > > > > > > > > On 14.05.2018 18:58, Dmitriy Govorukhin wrote: > > > > > > > >> Hi, Igniters! > > > >> > > > >> As far as I know, many people work on a thin client for different > > > language > > > >> (go,js,php...). > > > >> Are there any reasons why ignite does not support yaml or json > format > > > for > > > >> configuration? or some other popular format? > > > >> In future, it can help to integrate with thin clients, for example, > js > > > >> client may want to dynamic cache start, he passes cache > configuration > > > (in > > > >> native format, for js it will json) through TCP, Ignite node unwrap > > and > > > >> remap to java representation and dynamic start cache. > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
