Hi Carsten That's fine with me. It just seemed like it might be a good fit because of the comments. Seen that you went down that route already, lets stick with JSON + comments.
Regards Julian On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <cziege...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi Julian > > yes, we considered YAML. First of all, the OSGi Configuration Admin > specification will use JSON. That spec started with using YAML, but in > the end no one was happy with the format, so we replaced YAML with JSON. > > While YAML can support JSON, no one really does this - so we end up with > real YAML and JSON mixed. Which is confusing. And YAML is not practical > as soon as your document gets to a certain size. > > Or in other words :) I'm very much opposed to using YAML. Let's keep it > simple and JSON works fine. > > The JSON comments are based on what everyone seems to use ([1]). It's > easy to explain and easy to process. > > Regards > > Carsten > > [1] https://github.com/douglascrockford/JSMin > > > Julian Sedding wrote >> Hi Carsten >> >> This looks very interesting! >> >> Regarding the format, have you considered YAML? It is a superset of >> JSON (well, it's designed to also support JSON syntax) and it allows >> comments out of the box. Furthermore, it's well specified (in contrast >> to JSON with comments). I assume that using YAML, people could choose >> whether they want to write it more JSOn style or YAML style. >> >> Regards >> Julian >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Robert Munteanu <romb...@apache.org> wrote: >>> On Wed, 2017-10-04 at 10:01 +0200, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: >>>> Robert Munteanu wrote> On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 11:52 +0200, Carsten >>>> Ziegeler wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> 2. Reading the section on configuration merging, it is not >>>>>>> clear to >>>>>>> me >>>>>>> if merging is merging of values or overriding of values. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Consider >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> feature 1: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> com.foo.bar.Service >>>>>>> prop1="A" >>>>>>> prop2="B" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> feature 2: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> com.foo.bar.Service >>>>>>> prop1="C" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> After the merge, will the configuration define the prop2 >>>>>>> property? >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, values get overwritten. >>>>> >>>>> Is there any way of removing a configuration property once it's >>>>> defined >>>>> in a feature? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, if a feature is includes other features, the include instruction >>>> can have any number of removals. >>>> So you can remove properties before, bundles etc. >>> >>> >>> So I guess we have most (or even all) annoyances from the provisioning >>> model covered, which is great. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Robert > -- > Carsten Ziegeler > Adobe Research Switzerland > cziege...@apache.org
