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 <isap...@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.govoruk...@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....@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 <ptupit...@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.glu...@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. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
