Introducing additional plugin descriptor

Jay Shaughnessy jshaughn at redhat.com
Fri Apr 4 13:37:46 UTC 2014


I think we should not mix styles, just leave it as XML.  Much easier to 
not mix formats. One element per expression in the group def, just like 
in the gui.
<def>
   <expression>some expression</expression>
   <expression>some expression</expression>
</def>

If you happen to need CDATA then so be it, we can provide examples.

On 4/4/2014 9:07 AM, Heiko W.Rupp wrote:
> Am 04.04.2014 um 14:52 schrieb John Mazzitelli <mazz at redhat.com>:
>
>> What was the reason for not using XML in the first place?
> Perhaps because I wrote my first idea page with json.
> I think one of the more annoying parts of XML is that (depending on how you set it up)
> stuff needs to go into CDATA sections as element content forbids a good number
> of characters. And I do not think that the expressions themselves should go
> into an attribute - especially as I think that it is vital that the plugin developer
> an write them as multiline ones
>
> not
> groupby resource.name; resource.plugin.name = bla; ...
> but
> groupby resource.name
> resource.plugin.name = bla
> ...
>
> But again, writing such an expression is a one time effort, so it is less about
> making daily routine easier.
>
>   Just my €0.02 :)
>
>   
> _______________________________________________
> rhq-devel mailing list
> rhq-devel at lists.fedorahosted.org
> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/rhq-devel



More information about the rhq-devel mailing list