Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [config-dev] Tree structure vs flat structure discussion thread

My impression is that this was a change calculated politically rather than technically, but I may have misinterpreted it.  It doesn't really matter though: we're going to continue to go around and around without accomplishing anything until we can finally stop arguing about implementation and start discussing the actual use cases we want the APIs and SPIs to support.

I for one do not have infinite time; in fact I have many responsibilities that are not related to this specification. Spending even just an hour every week getting nowhere is not a good use of what little time I have available. We should have been much farther along by now, but every week we're almost starting over again, because every time someone new joins the group we have to re-justify what little consensus exists. Why? Because we don't have a solid foundation of documented use cases. All we have is arguments over including this code base or that code base, and "my implementation already does this" and so on. I for one don't have time to spend on this kind of discussion, nor to work with others who think that this is what specification authorship is.

We need to stop treating this like a competition between N different APIs and start treating it like what it is: a specification. You can't have a cogent specification without starting from use cases. It is simply not possible. And it is very clear that we do not have consensus on use cases. But rather than working towards consensus on use cases, we are for some reason using code dumps as a proxy.  My +1 vote was not a vote for the code or for anything the code implies. It was a vote to stop this pointless time-wasting argument so that there is at least a *chance* that we could start discussing use cases.

I will be using my vote and the votes of anyone I can possibly influence to block further progress beyond this point until we discuss, document, and agree upon use cases. If this does not happen, then I will probably withdraw and recommend to Red Hat to make it company-wide, and recommend others to do the same.

On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 5:55 AM Roberto Cortez <radcortez@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Can we clarify (or document) for future reference, why aren’t we adding support for Tree node at the ConfigSource level?

I know we discussed this during the calls, but not everyone is aware and I feel this is relevant enough to have it clarified.



On 12 Dec 2021, at 22:08, Emily Jiang <emijiang6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Just to clarify this tree vs. flat discussion. This is purely a representation of configurations on the surface. All properties are stored in a flat fashion. There is no right nor wrong. It is just a personal taste. My personal suggestion is to enable both while keeping the config.getValue(string propertyName, T type), the flat representation while allowing for tree presentation. What Mark mentioned in his thread is another issue to be solved down the line: dynamism. 

On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 2:37 PM Reza Rahman <reza_rahman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Definitely feeling a bit lost here. Why is a JNDI like tree concept needed? To retrieve stored objects rather than just strings? Dealing with the concepts of collections/arrays/containers? If so, adopting some string based syntax like [x] does not help?

From: config-dev <config-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Steve Millidge (Payara) <steve.millidge@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2021 4:58 AM
To: Jakarta Config project developer discussions
Subject: Re: [config-dev] Tree structure vs flat structure discussion thread

I am in favour of a tree structure.


Probably an unfashionable view but there is a danger that you just reimplement the javax.naming api, without mutability, when all required functionality for tree walking etc is added.




From: config-dev <config-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Dmitry Kornilov
Sent: 09 December 2021 19:42
To: Jakarta Config project developer discussions <config-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [config-dev] Tree structure vs flat structure discussion thread




As we discussed on the meeting today, I am going to create two email threads: one for the subj discussion (this thread) and another one for voting (I’ll do it later). The rule is simple: discuss the subj here and use voting thread only for voting.


To initiate the discussion:


Here is a link to Tomas’ PR for tree structure:

Here is my private gist with some thoughts:






Creating the voting thread now…

config-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe from this list, visit


config-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe from this list, visit

config-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe from this list, visit

- DML • he/him

Back to the top