On Jun 20, 2013, at 10:22 AM, Brant Knudson <b...@acm.org> wrote: > How about a mapping of JSON concepts to XML like: > > collections: > <object> <pair name="pair-name"> the-value </pair> ... </object> > <array> <element> the-value </element> ... </array> > > values: > <string>text</string> > <true/> > <false/> > <null/> > <number>number</number> > > This type of mapping would remove any ambiguities. Ambiguities and complexity > are problems I've seen with the XML-JSON mapping in Keystone. Plus the fact > that it's so not-XML would convince users to switch to JSON. With a simple > mapping, I don't think it would be necessary to test all the interfaces for > both XML and JSON, just test the mapping code.
+1 for something like this. JSON primary + autgenerated XML. I think the ideal version would be autogeneration of xml from jsonschema and some method for prettifying the xml representation via jsonschema tags. The jsonschema + tags approach is probably a bit further off (maybe for v4?), so having an auto conversion which is ugly but functional seems better than no XML support at all. Vish > > > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Jorge Williams > <jorge.willi...@rackspace.com> wrote: > > On Jun 20, 2013, at 10:51 AM, Russell Bryant wrote: > > > On 06/20/2013 11:20 AM, Brian Elliott wrote: > >> On Jun 19, 2013, at 7:34 PM, Christopher Yeoh <cbky...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> Just wondering what people thought about how necessary it is to keep XML > >>> support for the Nova v3 API, given that if we want to drop it doing so > >>> during the v2->v3 transition is pretty much the ideal time to do so. > >>> > >>> The current plan is to keep it and is what we have been doing so far when > >>> porting extensions, but there are pretty obvious long term development > >>> and test savings if we only have one API format to support. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> > >>> Chris > >>> > >> > >> Can we support CORBA? > >> > >> No really, it'd be great to drop support for it while we can. > > > > I agree personally ... but this has come up before, and when polling the > > larger audience (and not just the dev list), there is still a large > > amount of demand for XML support (or at least that was my > > interpretation). So, I think it should stay. > > > > I'm all for anything that makes supporting both easier. It doesn't have > > to be the ideal XML representation. If we wanted to adopt different > > formatting to make supporting it easier (automatic conversion from json > > in the code I guess), I'd be fine with that. > > > > > I agree, we can change the XML representation to make it easy to convert > between XML and JSON. If I could go back in time, that would definitely be > something I would do different. 3.0 gives us an opportunity to start over in > that regard. Extensions may still be "tricky" because you still want to > use namespaces, but having a simpler mapping may simplify the process of > supporting both. > > -jOrGe W. > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
