On 7/31/2014 4:31 PM, Tom Coleman wrote: > > When I first saw JSON, my first thought was "that could be a game > changer". It would incur more overhead, but nobody would be forced to > use it. > And think of the appeal to all those script language programmers! > > On reflection though, direct database calls are probably going the way > of the dodo bird - everyone seems to be thinking in terms of services > these days. > I don't know of any relational db with a JSON api, and if that's the > case you have to wonder why. > > A better approach might be to focus on developing a complete wire > protocol and well designed and documented interface (see Marius' > comments below). > Then if someone wanted or needed a JSON api, they could create one > themselves - it would not be difficult at all. > > That might also attract the interest of some energetic new developers > who could leverage the api to support other client platforms and > languages. > >
First, rest isn't remotely feasible for a SQL protocol. SQL requires state to be maintained from call to call, especially to do atomic transactions. It is possible to build a richer command language to encapsulate multiple updates, multiple retrievals, exception handling and reporting, etc. The AmorphousDB interface is designed to do this, but it isn't SQL. By the time you've extended SQL to handle everything necessary, it doesn't look or behave like SQL any more. And then there is the nasty problem that JSON only handles character data. Do you really want to turn binary blobs into base-64 for the line protocol? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Infragistics Professional Build stunning WinForms apps today! Reboot your WinForms applications with our WinForms controls. Build a bridge from your legacy apps to the future. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=153845071&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
