You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ossie.apache.org by Markus Weimer <we...@apache.org> on 2026/07/24 00:05:52 UTC
Canonical File Suffix?
Hi,
is there a canonical file suffix to use for Ossie files? I've seen raw
`.yaml` in the wild and wonder whether there is a better choice and if
not, whether we should define one.
Thanks,
Markus
Re: Canonical File Suffix?
Posted by Sahil W <sa...@gmail.com>.
Yes, .ossie.yaml sounds good alongside .yaml.
The converters read content not filenames, and editors still treat it as
YAML. Seems reasonable convention for mixed folders.
On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 12:30 PM Markus Weimer <we...@apache.org> wrote:
> Thanks! In situations where Ossie files and other files co-exist in
> the same folder, I understand it would be safe to use `.ossie.yaml`,
> right? It doesn't invalidate the `.yaml` assumption made here and it
> allows for UX to differentiate.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Markus
>
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 11:24 AM Sahil W <sa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for starting this discussion, Markus!
> >
> > +1 on maintaining .yaml as extension. I like the idea of .ossie suffix
> and
> > I agree that it will be nice for discoverability. We may want to think
> > about how it'll introduce challenges with editors, linters and CI
> pipelines
> > that all need config to recognize it as YAML. Today the version header
> > already identifies Ossie files without overhead so keeping .ossie
> optional
> > feels right.
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 12:21 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Markus,
> > >
> > > There is no canonical file suffix today. I assume you mean introducing
> > > a .ossie suffix (while still using the YAML format) to clearly
> > > identify it as an Ossie file.
> > >
> > > I think it's a good idea, provided it is not strictly required. Using
> > > "raw" YAML, we can already identify an Ossie file by its header (which
> > > contains the spec version, etc.). Therefore, we could support both the
> > > current "raw" YAML files and the new .ossie suffix, keeping the
> > > payload identical.
> > >
> > > Let's see what others think.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > JB
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 2:06 AM Markus Weimer <we...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > is there a canonical file suffix to use for Ossie files? I've seen
> raw
> > > > `.yaml` in the wild and wonder whether there is a better choice and
> if
> > > > not, whether we should define one.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Markus
> > >
>
Re: Canonical File Suffix?
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
I like `.ossie.yaml` extension. I don't see an issue in any system
today with this kind of extension. I'm fine to support it as soon as
we still accept "raw" yaml :)
Regards
JB
On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 5:40 AM Quigley Malcolm <q...@quigleymalcolm.com> wrote:
>
> Howdy!
>
> The `.ossie.yaml` syntax is an interesting one! I sanity checked that it wouldn't cause an issue on any operating system, and I believe it should be safe, which is wonderful :) Echoing what JB said, I don't think we should require it, but maybe it is a recommendation/best practice to aid in organization/differentiation.
>
> Best,
> Quigley
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 28th, 2026 at 11:30 AM, Markus Weimer <we...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Thanks! In situations where Ossie files and other files co-exist in
> > the same folder, I understand it would be safe to use `.ossie.yaml`,
> > right? It doesn't invalidate the `.yaml` assumption made here and it
> > allows for UX to differentiate.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Markus
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 11:24 AM Sahil W <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks for starting this discussion, Markus!
> > >
> > > +1 on maintaining .yaml as extension. I like the idea of .ossie suffix and
> > > I agree that it will be nice for discoverability. We may want to think
> > > about how it'll introduce challenges with editors, linters and CI pipelines
> > > that all need config to recognize it as YAML. Today the version header
> > > already identifies Ossie files without overhead so keeping .ossie optional
> > > feels right.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 12:21 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Markus,
> > > >
> > > > There is no canonical file suffix today. I assume you mean introducing
> > > > a .ossie suffix (while still using the YAML format) to clearly
> > > > identify it as an Ossie file.
> > > >
> > > > I think it's a good idea, provided it is not strictly required. Using
> > > > "raw" YAML, we can already identify an Ossie file by its header (which
> > > > contains the spec version, etc.). Therefore, we could support both the
> > > > current "raw" YAML files and the new .ossie suffix, keeping the
> > > > payload identical.
> > > >
> > > > Let's see what others think.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > JB
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 2:06 AM Markus Weimer <we...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > is there a canonical file suffix to use for Ossie files? I've seen raw
> > > > > `.yaml` in the wild and wonder whether there is a better choice and if
> > > > > not, whether we should define one.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Markus
> > > >
> >
Re: Canonical File Suffix?
Posted by Quigley Malcolm <q...@quigleymalcolm.com>.
Howdy!
The `.ossie.yaml` syntax is an interesting one! I sanity checked that it wouldn't cause an issue on any operating system, and I believe it should be safe, which is wonderful :) Echoing what JB said, I don't think we should require it, but maybe it is a recommendation/best practice to aid in organization/differentiation.
Best,
Quigley
On Tuesday, July 28th, 2026 at 11:30 AM, Markus Weimer <we...@apache.org> wrote:
> Thanks! In situations where Ossie files and other files co-exist in
> the same folder, I understand it would be safe to use `.ossie.yaml`,
> right? It doesn't invalidate the `.yaml` assumption made here and it
> allows for UX to differentiate.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Markus
>
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 11:24 AM Sahil W <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for starting this discussion, Markus!
> >
> > +1 on maintaining .yaml as extension. I like the idea of .ossie suffix and
> > I agree that it will be nice for discoverability. We may want to think
> > about how it'll introduce challenges with editors, linters and CI pipelines
> > that all need config to recognize it as YAML. Today the version header
> > already identifies Ossie files without overhead so keeping .ossie optional
> > feels right.
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 12:21 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Markus,
> > >
> > > There is no canonical file suffix today. I assume you mean introducing
> > > a .ossie suffix (while still using the YAML format) to clearly
> > > identify it as an Ossie file.
> > >
> > > I think it's a good idea, provided it is not strictly required. Using
> > > "raw" YAML, we can already identify an Ossie file by its header (which
> > > contains the spec version, etc.). Therefore, we could support both the
> > > current "raw" YAML files and the new .ossie suffix, keeping the
> > > payload identical.
> > >
> > > Let's see what others think.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > JB
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 2:06 AM Markus Weimer <we...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > is there a canonical file suffix to use for Ossie files? I've seen raw
> > > > `.yaml` in the wild and wonder whether there is a better choice and if
> > > > not, whether we should define one.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Markus
> > >
>
Re: Canonical File Suffix?
Posted by Markus Weimer <we...@apache.org>.
Thanks! In situations where Ossie files and other files co-exist in
the same folder, I understand it would be safe to use `.ossie.yaml`,
right? It doesn't invalidate the `.yaml` assumption made here and it
allows for UX to differentiate.
Thanks,
Markus
On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 11:24 AM Sahil W <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for starting this discussion, Markus!
>
> +1 on maintaining .yaml as extension. I like the idea of .ossie suffix and
> I agree that it will be nice for discoverability. We may want to think
> about how it'll introduce challenges with editors, linters and CI pipelines
> that all need config to recognize it as YAML. Today the version header
> already identifies Ossie files without overhead so keeping .ossie optional
> feels right.
>
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 12:21 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Markus,
> >
> > There is no canonical file suffix today. I assume you mean introducing
> > a .ossie suffix (while still using the YAML format) to clearly
> > identify it as an Ossie file.
> >
> > I think it's a good idea, provided it is not strictly required. Using
> > "raw" YAML, we can already identify an Ossie file by its header (which
> > contains the spec version, etc.). Therefore, we could support both the
> > current "raw" YAML files and the new .ossie suffix, keeping the
> > payload identical.
> >
> > Let's see what others think.
> >
> > Regards,
> > JB
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 2:06 AM Markus Weimer <we...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > is there a canonical file suffix to use for Ossie files? I've seen raw
> > > `.yaml` in the wild and wonder whether there is a better choice and if
> > > not, whether we should define one.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Markus
> >
Re: Canonical File Suffix?
Posted by Sahil W <sa...@gmail.com>.
Thanks for starting this discussion, Markus!
+1 on maintaining .yaml as extension. I like the idea of .ossie suffix and
I agree that it will be nice for discoverability. We may want to think
about how it'll introduce challenges with editors, linters and CI pipelines
that all need config to recognize it as YAML. Today the version header
already identifies Ossie files without overhead so keeping .ossie optional
feels right.
On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 12:21 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
wrote:
> Hi Markus,
>
> There is no canonical file suffix today. I assume you mean introducing
> a .ossie suffix (while still using the YAML format) to clearly
> identify it as an Ossie file.
>
> I think it's a good idea, provided it is not strictly required. Using
> "raw" YAML, we can already identify an Ossie file by its header (which
> contains the spec version, etc.). Therefore, we could support both the
> current "raw" YAML files and the new .ossie suffix, keeping the
> payload identical.
>
> Let's see what others think.
>
> Regards,
> JB
>
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 2:06 AM Markus Weimer <we...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > is there a canonical file suffix to use for Ossie files? I've seen raw
> > `.yaml` in the wild and wonder whether there is a better choice and if
> > not, whether we should define one.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Markus
>
Re: Canonical File Suffix?
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
Hi Markus,
There is no canonical file suffix today. I assume you mean introducing
a .ossie suffix (while still using the YAML format) to clearly
identify it as an Ossie file.
I think it's a good idea, provided it is not strictly required. Using
"raw" YAML, we can already identify an Ossie file by its header (which
contains the spec version, etc.). Therefore, we could support both the
current "raw" YAML files and the new .ossie suffix, keeping the
payload identical.
Let's see what others think.
Regards,
JB
On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 2:06 AM Markus Weimer <we...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> is there a canonical file suffix to use for Ossie files? I've seen raw
> `.yaml` in the wild and wonder whether there is a better choice and if
> not, whether we should define one.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Markus