shiro-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeremy Haile <jha...@fastmail.fm>
Subject Re: JSON as a configuration format?
Date Fri, 29 Aug 2008 18:48:02 GMT
My fear is that the JSON syntax is bordering on writing our own  
"Spring framework config" - I'd rather standardize on being able to  
embed spring than invent our own syntax that no one is familiar with.   
I'm not against options, but personally I think most users will be  
fine either using the simple INI (properties-looking) format or just  
using Spring for more complex situations.

J


On Aug 29, 2008, at 2:40 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:

> Hi JSecurity Community,
>
> I'd like to get your thoughts on something.
>
> Currently, JSecurity's only text-based configuration option (in  
> web.xml or
> jsecurity.ini) is the INI file format.
>
> This format works well enough and seems clean, but it doesn't  
> particularly
> handle object graph definitions all that well.  But JSecurity  
> configuration
> is essentially just that - an object graph of the JSecurity  
> SecurityManager
> and all of its dependencies (realms, etc).
>
> JSON might be a better format for object graph definitions, and  
> might be
> more succinct than even INI.  Would it be worth having this as the  
> preferred
> configuration syntax instead?
>
> Consider the following definitions:
>
> INI:
>
> bar = some.domain.package.Bar
> bar.name = ABar
> bar.amount = 50.00
>
> foo = some.domain.package.Foo
> foo.something = Some value
> foo.bar = $bar
> foo.anotherThing = 52
>
> JSON:
>
> foo: some.domain.package.Foo {
>    something: Some value,
>    bar: some.domain.package.Bar {
>        name: ABar,
>        amount: 50.00
>    },
>    anotherThing: 52
> }
>
> What do you think?  Which one would you prefer?
>
> --
> Les


Mime
View raw message