From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 29 05:18:44 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB8E48B5 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 05:18:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pa0-f52.google.com (mail-pa0-f52.google.com [209.85.220.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9DFD425D5 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 05:18:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pa0-f52.google.com with SMTP id bj1so11797920pad.11 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 22:18:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=vjSaFQ3Q2nCeV5sxlXHqytT86dIjMGVrpUNGrX5JWns=; b=Czz0So76UKbmEakDk2pxzxItXKnelkGei+r6ipNrnGg5JgE5SbOZkLW5JNZKAI2f8T 8Y0T4bTVZXos6Yrt++6FMvIxBjNaueJfFhr+jNcLPcAZXDGOz61x5Lvuk+d4gezPhHlt GwDQwHuTH5macaMP/rl0dgB7euUw77PPckfMf/CmrX7CBPDIGpDKC12QD79eF7FEFpN6 E9zuVAOGRaAekGNMzHQ/RHX309UhfCKdut3LI0n+QwHh1rHtfbCxBADBMXEBEuw/nN/d qpM1xnh0KyEHE7EK+sP8pHXm5ihXwa+BplWXmazJeCoZycNRXn398KMfarwjFcIA5cIB 4yAg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmFZWkVyweTAqPl6TWUBECjUS2oN9DgF2d5fnu8hrdEMB8NBQkKdehiywGS2K15nxDJdZgX MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.68.65.36 with SMTP id u4mr4437711pbs.127.1406611118107; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 22:18:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.101.41 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 22:18:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.101.41 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 22:18:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20140725044921.9F0D3580A2@chaos.jnpr.net> <20140728054217.AC1A0580A2@chaos.jnpr.net> <20140728055336.GJ50802@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 22:18:38 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: XML Output: libxo - provide single API to output TXT, XML, JSON and HTML From: Jos Backus To: Jordan Hubbard Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.18 Cc: arch@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 05:18:45 -0000 On Jul 28, 2014 9:49 PM, "Jordan Hubbard" wrote: > > > On Jul 27, 2014, at 11:06 PM, Jos Backus wrote: > > > It would be great if libyaml and libucl would converge, but instead it'= s > > likely that the number of solutions trying to solve the same problem will > > continue to proliferate, and we are stuck with more and more configuration > > file formats :-( > > I=E2=80=99m a huge fan of unified data formats; Apple picked XML and the = plist DTD a long time ago, a decision which has worked rather nicely in practice, but I=E2=80=99m more in love with the unification that produced than I am i= n love with XML itself. That said, it seems like this late push for YAML is a similar case for divergence just because=E2=80=A6erm=E2=80=A6 you don=E2=80= =99t like JSON? It seems like libucl has basically backed JSON with the addition of a little syntactic sugar, so what=E2=80=99s wrong with that? In general, as a tool, JSON is more limited/less expressive than YAML. Now YAGNI may apply here but I personally am not sure so I'm tempted to opt for the more flexible tool because of that. I could be wrong and maybe JSON is all that's ever needed. > Is there some reason JSON is not sufficient? I think that=E2=80=99s a be= tter question to ask, since the conversation otherwise quickly tends to sound a little like =E2=80=9CI=E2=80=99ll accept any single unified format as long = as it=E2=80=99s the specific one I like!=E2=80=9D :) I think the greater good argument would = suggest just picking one that=E2=80=99s expressive enough (roll a pair of dice), pu= t on your bikeshed-proof sunglasses, and proceed. That's a good point, and one I don't really disagree with. The main goal here is to get us machine parsable output. But part of me is sad because it's a lost opportunity to promote the more flexible format. One of the reasons JSON is so popular is the network effect, I think (it's popular because it's popular). Oh well. :) Jos > > - Jordan >