Yes, that's right. If you'd like me to make my comment on this, I'd say... what I was trying to emphasize was, what would be the choice of *configuration file syntax* if we have INI, XML, JSON and Apache-sytle on the table.
Well, I would choose JSON for representing structured data which is mainly generated by applications. But for configuration files which is expected to be handled by hands, I'll choose Apache-style because even thought JSON is powerful, it's easy to make grammar errors. To me, Apache-style gives much human friendly look. It's straight-forward and can express everything that applications need to take from. And here my point comes, Even thought I think Apache-style is better, I may hesitate to choose Apache-style format because of the reason it's not a standard and not even a de-fector syntax that many others use. But if it's supported by Apache group, I think that's a different story. I'm not sure that I'm supposed to make a comments here in the process of review. I guess I made my intention clearly. I'll just wait and see the decision and respect it. Thanks Seungyoung On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Steve Loughran <steve.lough...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 31 May 2012 07:18, Seungyoung Kim <wolky...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> XML and JSON format is another one which are used wided, but little bit >> too complecated and heavy from application's stand point of view. >> > > I'd agree with this critique of XML, but not JSON. Easy to yacc-up a > parser, a fair number of implementations out there, and lots of web browser > support. A reasonably straightforward mapping from the JSON to a tree of > (key, entry) pairs, unlike say the XML dom with its namespaces, > intermingled text elements with other things, the duopoly of attributes and > elements. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
