On 03/27/2012 06:32 AM, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
So, I would like to propose alternative syntax solving the issues above. I probably should start with saying that if the talk is about LAVA, then using native LAVA JSON request immediately comes to mind. Well, I guess human-writability wasn't a design goal for that, so I skip it. It still makes sense to stick to general-purpose hierarchical structure syntax though. Except that JSON has 2 problems: a) it doesn't support comments natively, so we'll need to pre-process
I'm fine with the overall idea, but I'm not a big fan of adding support for comments for two reasons.
1) are these files really so exotic they need comments. ie:
# run monkey { "commands": [ "monkey 2000"], } I don't see those type of comments as useful
2) if comments are needed couldn't we work around it and still be valid JSON by doing something like:
{ "comment": "Let's pretend this is useful", "commands": [ "monkey 2000"], }