On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 12:00 PM, John Locke <[email protected]> wrote: > I do think being able to accommodate XML is a necessity, especially for > integrating with all of the other systems that use that as a medium.
This gets into the representation stuff I was talking about before. Namely that some of the formats we want to address (XML, JSON, etc) can be accurate representations of our internal structures so data can be serialized to/from them, only converting between data structures where necessary for integration work. OTOH, some other formats (EDI, CSV, etc) are going to use a flat namespace, so being able to serialize to/from them is going to require a different representation. As long as we have documented representations of all objects in both these forms, we can support just about any interchange format that we come across. A lot of this comes down to the idea that LedgerSMB should be usable as infrastructure, not just as a web application. > However, put me in the JSON camp for actual new application > development--far less wordy, a lot quicker in browser-based application, > and just as easy to parse/widespread library support. I agree here, actually. One thing I dislike about XML/SGML formats is their wordiness. If I am debugging, I would prefer clear, uncluttered formats. Best Wishes, Chris Travers ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev _______________________________________________ Ledger-smb-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ledger-smb-devel
