On Jun 21, 2013, at 12:38 PM, Doug Hellmann <doug.hellm...@dreamhost.com> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya <vishvana...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > 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 > > Let's please not invent something new for this. We're building a high level > platform. We shouldn't have to screw around with making so many low level > frameworks to do things for which tools already exist. WSME will handle > serialization, cleanly, in both XML and JSON already. Let's just use that. > > Doug Doug, Switching to WSME for v3 is out of scope at this point I think. Definitely worth considering for v4 though. 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
