incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Seungyoung Kim <>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Apache Parser
Date Fri, 01 Jun 2012 00:05:30 GMT
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.


On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Steve Loughran
<> wrote:
> On 31 May 2012 07:18, Seungyoung Kim <> 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:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message