I don't think jq supports comments. But as I stated, all our code writes out perfectly valid JSON without any comments. So you can use this with any tooling that supports JSON.
*If* you want to have comments in your source feature, we currently support them as described. Now, looking at the existing provisioning models, I think that is enough. However if people feel strong about it, we could add special comment properties here and there. But then the whole processing gets way more complicated and bloated as we have to drag them around, think about how to handle them when merging etc. In addition, the OSGi configuration specification does not allow such properties, so configurations would be out of the picture. It really seems to be a rare use case for which I don't want to clutter the spec with Carsten Bertrand Delacretaz wrote > On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Julian Sedding <jsedd...@gmail.com> wrote: >> ...lets stick with JSON + comments... > > Is that format accepted by JSON tools? Can I for example do > > cat provisioning-model | jq . > > ? > > Otherwise I fear the format combines the worst of both worlds: hard > for humans to read and write (JSON) and not directly suitable for > machine processing. In which case I suggest rediscussing the comments > format/schema to make sure the result is pure JSON - maybe with > _comment_ elements that tools can easily ignore. > > -Bertrand > -- Carsten Ziegeler Adobe Research Switzerland cziege...@apache.org
