• Guido (6/6) Jun 15 2016 It would seem that by running the file through mixin, you can
• Seb (12/18) Jun 15 2016 Well it's a configuration file that e.g. the registry has to
• Jacob Carlborg (10/12) Jun 15 2016 If one had to explicitly upload Dub packages via a Dub command instead
• Guido (6/24) Jun 16 2016 Thanks for the answer. I conceptually like SDL better than JSON.
• Seb (8/38) Jun 16 2016 Well fib initially started with Json, then wanted to switch to
• Guido (8/10) Jun 16 2016 This dub convert command is weird. It works as `cat dub.json |
• ketmar (2/4) Jun 16 2016 yes. read json file and convert it to anything you want. ;-)

Guido <guido mailinator.org> writes:

It would seem that by running the file through mixin, you can 
simply create the vars you want in scope. The drawback being 
random code execution. Is there any way to sanitize mixin code 
from user-configurable file?

Once that's shot down, does anyone know a .json to .sdl converter 
program

Seb <seb wilzba.ch> writes:

On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 05:31:26 UTC, Guido wrote:
 It would seem that by running the file through mixin, you can 
 simply create the vars you want in scope. The drawback being 
 random code execution. Is there any way to sanitize mixin code 
 from user-configurable file?

Well it's a configuration file that e.g. the registry has to 
parse too, hence (as for all config files) random code execution 
is pretty bad.
Apart from that it's just about a small configuration file for 
the name, title etc. - you don't need a full-blown D interpreter 
for this.

Imho SDL does a good job at keeping the syntax rather minimal :)

Of course do one stops you to use D to generate a configuration 
file.

 Once that's shot down, does anyone know a .json to .sdl 
 converter program

have a look at  `dub convert` - in your case e.g. `dub convert -f 
sdl`

Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:

On 2016-06-16 08:07, Seb wrote:

 Well it's a configuration file that e.g. the registry has to parse too,
 hence (as for all config files) random code execution is pretty bad.

If one had to explicitly upload Dub packages via a Dub command instead 
of pushing a tag to the git repository, the D code could be compiled to 
a JSON format on the client side when building the package.

I like that approach for other reasons as well:

* No dependency on a code repository
* Maybe I don't want all my tags to be accessible in the registry
* Not requirement to use Git (not really a problem for me)

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

Guido <guido mailinator.org> writes:

On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 06:07:55 UTC, Seb wrote:
 On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 05:31:26 UTC, Guido wrote:
 It would seem that by running the file through mixin, you can 
 simply create the vars you want in scope. The drawback being 
 random code execution. Is there any way to sanitize mixin code 
 from user-configurable file?

 Well it's a configuration file that e.g. the registry has to 
 parse too, hence (as for all config files) random code 
 execution is pretty bad.
 Apart from that it's just about a small configuration file for 
 the name, title etc. - you don't need a full-blown D 
 interpreter for this.

 Imho SDL does a good job at keeping the syntax rather minimal :)

 Of course do one stops you to use D to generate a configuration 
 file.

 Once that's shot down, does anyone know a .json to .sdl 
 converter program

 have a look at  `dub convert` - in your case e.g. `dub convert 
 -f sdl`

Thanks for the answer. I conceptually like SDL better than JSON. 
We'll see how I like it in practice. I went looking for examples 
of SDL online and found that even the SDlang-D project is using a 
dub.json configuration file. How weird is that?

Also, LOL  Ketmar.

Seb <seb wilzba.ch> writes:

On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 13:20:06 UTC, Guido wrote:
 On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 06:07:55 UTC, Seb wrote:
 On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 05:31:26 UTC, Guido wrote:
 It would seem that by running the file through mixin, you can 
 simply create the vars you want in scope. The drawback being 
 random code execution. Is there any way to sanitize mixin 
 code from user-configurable file?

 Well it's a configuration file that e.g. the registry has to 
 parse too, hence (as for all config files) random code 
 execution is pretty bad.
 Apart from that it's just about a small configuration file for 
 the name, title etc. - you don't need a full-blown D 
 interpreter for this.

 Imho SDL does a good job at keeping the syntax rather minimal 
 :)

 Of course do one stops you to use D to generate a 
 configuration file.

 Once that's shot down, does anyone know a .json to .sdl 
 converter program

 have a look at  `dub convert` - in your case e.g. `dub convert 
 -f sdl`

 Thanks for the answer. I conceptually like SDL better than 
 JSON. We'll see how I like it in practice. I went looking for 
 examples of SDL online and found that even the SDlang-D project 
 is using a dub.json configuration file. How weird is that?

 Also, LOL  Ketmar.

Well fib initially started with Json, then wanted to switch to 
sdl, but never made the move.
See this issue for some details:

https://github.com/dlang/dub/issues/789

I think the only problem with sdl is that it's rather unknown and 
a _popular_ human-readable format like toml or yaml would have 
been a better choice.

Guido <guido mailinator.org> writes:

 have a look at  `dub convert` - in your case e.g. `dub convert 
 -f sdl`

This dub convert command is weird. It works as `cat dub.json | 
dub convert -sdl' and makes a nice SDL file called dub.sdl, but 
it blows away the source file, which I've never seen before with 
piped output from cat. I don't like deleting the source file 
being the default behavior.

Also, commands like `dub convert -f sdl dub.json' and variations 
of that sort don't seem to work as a command. They have errors.

What's the weirdness here?

ketmar <ketmar ketmar.no-ip.org> writes:

On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 05:31:26 UTC, Guido wrote:
 Is there any way to sanitize mixin code from user-configurable 
 file?

yes. read json file and convert it to anything you want. ;-)