Hi all mates, long time without chatting :) my proposal would have had more sense at the time I proposed it, but at that current stage where you have XML, JSON and YAML and you are satisfied with them, it doesn't make anymore sense.
Modello approach is fine because XML|JSON|YAML Readers|Writers are generated without writing any single line of code - when upgrading the model, developers need to regenerate them without maintaining (un)marshallers by hand Take in consideration Modello would have helped you on keeping the configuration less structured - both current log4j JSON/YAML could have been modeled in a less verbose format. Best, -Simo http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ http://twitter.com/simonetripodi On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:32 AM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]>wrote: > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 6:59 PM, Ralph Goers > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> First, my initial goal was to make it so that you could use the core >> features of Log4j 2 with no third party dependencies. I am not sure if that >> is true any more but I see no reason to introduce one for configuration. >> >> Second, I don’t really see what benefit we would be getting. Perhaps that >> is because in the links Simone provided I don’t see anything that ties to >> the configuration he is manipulating back into Log4j >> >> Third, the algorithm used in parsing the configuration is really simple - >> the configuration is converted into a Node tree. BaseConfiguration then >> processes the Node tree to create the actual configuration. So if you want >> to create a new configuration type all you have to do is make sure that >> when it is done a proper Node tree is constructed. >> >> If I wanted to create a configuration based on Groovy or bean shell I >> know exactly what would need to be done. I have no idea how that could be >> accomplished using modello. >> >> In short, nothing I’ve seen yet has convinced me that there is anything >> to gain by switching. >> > > OK, thanks for the clarifications. > > I'm curious to see if Simone can explain the pros and cons of his system. > > Gary > > >> >> Ralph >> >> On Feb 27, 2014, at 2:41 PM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I just saw a commit for YAML config. >> >> Can we review what Simone T. did a while back in the area of >> configuration? >> >> @Simone: Can you give an overview? >> >> Thank you, >> Gary >> >> -- >> E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] >> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second >> Edition<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> >> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> >> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> >> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com >> Home: http://garygregory.com/ >> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory >> >> >> > > > -- > E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second > Edition<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> > JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> > Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory >
