Why aren't we sticking with XML? What does "not fancy" even mean? Is that
seriously the only "con" to using XML here?
IMO, we should use XML for this kind of thing unless XML cam't do what we want.
"Not fancy" is not a reason to move away from it. "It is not the latest
thing all the cool kids are using" shouldn't be a reason we should consider.
What was the reason for not using XML in the first place?
----- Original Message -----
Hello,
last week I demoed Canned DynaGroup Expressions provided by plugin [1]. On
IRC we discusses what file format should we use (currently I wrote it
using yaml). It's possible that in future we're going to introduce another
descriptor, so we may want some consistency in file formats.
We have basically 3 possibilities yaml, json and xml.
Short summary of pros and cons:
yaml:
+ human readable
+ can be parsed to objects (similar to jackson)
- no declarative "yaml-schema" validation possible
json:
+ harder to read/write
+ json-schema
- gaYak does not like it :-)
xml:
+ consistency (we already use xml - rhq-plugin.xml)
+ xml-schema
+ easy to write in schema-aware IDE
- not fancy
I'd personally stick with yaml, because it's readable. I don't miss
validation using schema, because structure I am using in
dynagroup-expressions.yaml is simple enough, and I still need to
additionally validate/evaluate (even if schema would have existed) the
expression.
Thanks
[1]
http://youtu.be/pB5Qr4Sys2w
--
Libor Zoubek
_______________________________________________
rhq-devel mailing list
rhq-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/rhq-devel