ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>
Subject Re: supporting different configuration format json,yaml...
Date Tue, 15 May 2018 09:56:10 GMT
I still do not understand *why* do we need to add additional formats for
the configuration. Can you please show me some users on the user@ list or
stack overflow who asked for it? I just want to make sure that if we are
creating work for ourselves, then someone actually needs it.

D.

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 12:41 PM, Igor Sapego <isapego@apache.org> wrote:

> I don't think we need to add new formats on server side as there may
> be a lot of different formats for different clients. On the other hand,
> supporting additional formats may be non trivial and error-prone, while
> adding little to a user experience.
>
> For clients, I see no problem in adding for example JSON -> XML
> converter on client side, if JS folks need it.
>
> For servers, adding another configuration format just to make it more
> familiar to users with no Java background seems unreasonable to me
> as well, as there still going to be Java class names in configuration
> and Spring approach in general.
>
> What will change is a XML formatting is going to change to JSON
> formatting, which has no much sense to me, as everyone know XML.
> It is Spring approach what can be confusing to non-Java users, and
> it is not going to change regardless of format.
>
> Best Regards,
> Igor
>
> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 12:15 PM, Dmitriy Govorukhin <
> dmitriy.govorukhin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Folks,
> >
> > I guess when work on a thin client will be completed, we get more
> newcomers
> > who use go/python/php/js.
> > And we can do ignite more friendly for them, support familiar formats for
> > configuration.
> >
> > On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 12:13 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Igniters,
> > >
> > > In general I aggree with adding new format, e.g. JSON is more popular
> > than
> > > XML for new applications.
> > >
> > > In the same time I've never heard that user asked this in the user
> list.
> > Or
> > > did I missed such topics?
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > >
> > > вт, 15 мая 2018 г. в 9:31, Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupitsyn@apache.org>:
> > >
> > > > Dmitriy,
> > > >
> > > > We don't need to support different config formats on server in order
> to
> > > add
> > > > that to thin clients.
> > > >
> > > > Thin client protocol provides a way to create a cache with custom
> > config
> > > > [1].
> > > > It is up to thin client library authors to use any config format they
> > > like
> > > > and then convert it into protocol-defined format.
> > > >
> > > > C# thin client uses custom format, for example, not Spring.
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > > > https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/binary-client-
> > > protocol-cache-configuration-operations#section-op_cache_
> > > create_with_configuration
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 7:54 PM, Ivan Rakov <ivan.glukos@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Dmitry,
> > > > >
> > > > > We rely on Spring Framework when we start Ignite node from XML
> > > > > configuration. Spring doesn't easily support another formats of
> > > > > configuration files. I think, the main reason for this is built-in
> > > > ability
> > > > > to validate configuration via XML Schema. We can surely hack this
> > > around
> > > > (I
> > > > > bet there are existing libraries for configuring Spring with JSON),
> > > but I
> > > > > don't think that anyone suffered from inability to statically
> > configure
> > > > > Ignite with json/yaml.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regarding thin clients: makes sense. I suppose necessary mappings
> > will
> > > be
> > > > > implemented as a part of thin client.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > Ivan Rakov
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 14.05.2018 18:58, Dmitriy Govorukhin wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Hi, Igniters!
> > > > >>
> > > > >> As far as I know, many people work on a thin client for different
> > > > language
> > > > >> (go,js,php...).
> > > > >> Are there any reasons why ignite does not support yaml or json
> > format
> > > > for
> > > > >> configuration? or some other popular format?
> > > > >> In future, it can help to integrate with thin clients, for
> example,
> > js
> > > > >> client may want to dynamic cache start, he passes cache
> > configuration
> > > > (in
> > > > >> native format, for js it will json) through TCP, Ignite node
> unwrap
> > > and
> > > > >> remap to java representation and dynamic start cache.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message