Hi Mark,
Yes you are right. I was not being specific enough.
I am only suggesting that OpenStack handles proper return codes when a
client is either asking for a different media type or sends a different
media type that is not supported by OpenStack.
Regards
James
On 6/12/11 6:51 AM, Mar
On 6/12/11 12:08 AM, "Mark Nottingham" wrote:
>>
>>
>> I understand where you're coming from Mark. I'm still suffering PTSD
>>from the SOAP days. One of the lessons leaned there was that auto
>>generated language bindings are a bad idea. Unless you strictly control
>>the client and server
Hey,
Sorry it took a while to get back; other things intervened.
On 03/06/2011, at 11:56 PM, Jorge Williams wrote:
>
> On Jun 2, 2011, at 10:41 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
>> The problem I mentioned before, though, is that XML Schema brings more
>> issues to the table than it solves.
>>
>>
On 03/06/2011, at 11:23 PM, James Weir wrote:
> At the very minimum until/if OpenStack supports XML, when I client wishes to
> receive media type "application/xml" OpenStack should return a:
>
> HTTP: 415 response
> The server is refusing to service the request because the entity of the
> reques
No, it was the title of my talk at CCA11. The motto is, and will
remain, "Free as in speech, love, and beer."
Sent from my iPhone
On 2011-06-04, at 7:43 PM, Bryan Taylor wrote:
> Motto!
>
> On 6/4/11 9:39 PM, "Joshua McKenty" wrote:
>
>> Damn, I knew I should have trademarked the "OpenStack,
Motto!
On 6/4/11 9:39 PM, "Joshua McKenty" wrote:
>Damn, I knew I should have trademarked the "OpenStack, Cloud's Big Tent"
>slogan!
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://
Damn, I knew I should have trademarked the "OpenStack, Cloud's Big Tent" slogan!
Sent from my iPhone
On 2011-06-04, at 10:37 AM, Bryan Taylor wrote:
> On Jun 4, 2011, at 9:14 AM, "Ed Leafe" wrote:
>
>> On Jun 3, 2011, at 1:13 PM, Bryan Taylor wrote:
>>
>>> We've standardized on XML for backend
On Jun 4, 2011, at 9:14 AM, "Ed Leafe" wrote:
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 1:13 PM, Bryan Taylor wrote:
>
>> We've standardized on XML for backend work. We aren't spending much time
>> debugging serialization issues and are pretty happy with our decision and
>> aren't likly to change any time soon
Ou
On Jun 3, 2011, at 1:13 PM, Bryan Taylor wrote:
> We've standardized on XML for backend work. We aren't spending much time
> debugging serialization issues and are pretty happy with our decision and
> aren't likly to change any time soon
vs.
> So the obvious thing to do is support both
Format wars are so tiring. What formats we Openstack should output is a
marketing question, not a technical one. We should be trying to figure
out how to do more formats, not fewer, because customers don't want us
making choices that place constraints on them, especially when those are
tied to
Perfect...can't ask for more than that.
One extra thing is IF we decide to support XML, then it would be nice to
also support gzip-compressed, allowing the XML to be compressed when
sent - this helps save some bandwidth ;)
This is usually supported in most application/web servers when sendin
No objections.
-- James
On 6/3/11 3:52 PM, Ed Leafe wrote:
On Jun 3, 2011, at 9:23 AM, James Weir wrote:
Reading through the thread, I completely agree with the reasons why from a
technical perspective OpenStack would wish to support JSON over XML. I do
prefer JSON, however, as George (Re
On Jun 2, 2011, at 10:41 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> The problem I mentioned before, though, is that XML Schema brings more issues
> to the table than it solves.
>
> 1) People inevitably use schema to generate bindings to [insert language],
> and because of the complexity of the underlying da
On Jun 3, 2011, at 9:23 AM, James Weir wrote:
> Reading through the thread, I completely agree with the reasons why from a
> technical perspective OpenStack would wish to support JSON over XML. I do
> prefer JSON, however, as George (Reese) mentioned there are a lot of people
> still wishing t
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:23 AM, James Weir wrote:
> At the very minimum until/if OpenStack supports XML, when I client wishes to
> receive media type "application/xml" OpenStack should return a:
>
> HTTP: 415 response
> The server is refusing to service the request because the entity of the
> requ
sage-
From: openstack-bounces+biermana=brocade@lists.launchpad.net
[mailto:openstack-bounces+biermana=brocade@lists.launchpad.net] On Behalf
Of George Reese
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 2:37 AM
To: Mark Nottingham
Cc: openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] XML and JSON
bounces+biermana=brocade@lists.launchpad.net
> [mailto:openstack-bounces+biermana=brocade@lists.launchpad.net] On Behalf
> Of George Reese
> Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 2:37 AM
> To: Mark Nottingham
> Cc: openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> Subject: Re: [Openstack] XML and JSON for API&
iermana=brocade@lists.launchpad.net
[mailto:openstack-bounces+biermana=brocade@lists.launchpad.net] On Behalf
Of George Reese
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 2:37 AM
To: Mark Nottingham
Cc: openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] XML and JSON for API's
A lot of the arguments against bo
A lot of the arguments against both XML and JSON seem to boil down to "here's
why XML sucks..."
The reality is, for whatever reason, good or bad, a lot of people prefer to
parse complex data in XML. There's a big market for it. Supporting both formats
doesn't add horrible complexity.
-George
The problem I mentioned before, though, is that XML Schema brings more issues
to the table than it solves.
1) People inevitably use schema to generate bindings to [insert language], and
because of the complexity of the underlying data model of XML (Infoset), the
mapping of information items to
=brocade@lists.launchpad.net
[mailto:openstack-bounces+biermana=brocade@lists.launchpad.net] On Behalf
Of George Reese
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 12:53 PM
To: Jorge Williams
Cc: openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] XML and JSON for API's
+1
Sent from my iPhone
O
+1
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 2, 2011, at 22:20, Jorge Williams wrote:
> It's not just about the service itself validating it, its as Joseph said,
> making sure that the data structures themselves are documented in detail to
> the client. To my knowledge there is no accepted schema language
It's not just about the service itself validating it, its as Joseph said,
making sure that the data structures themselves are documented in detail to the
client. To my knowledge there is no accepted schema language in JSON though
JSON schema is starting to catch on.
At the end of the day it
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Rick Clark wrote:
> Hi All,
> Is it required for new openstack API's to support both JSON and XML, or
> would it be acceptable to only support JSON?
Glance currently does not support XML and I have no plans in the
immediate future to add support for it.
IMHO, JSON
I beg to differ on the value of XML to enterprise customers - My perception is
that validation of the data structure and valid values is important, but that
doesn't mean it needs to be XML. The same can be done with JSON (although
there's not the fancy validators set up for that), and JSON is es
I think we would lose some of the benefits of REST if we were to support a
single format. My experience is that we have two communities of customers some
of which prefer XML and others prefer JSON and we should be able to serve both
communities. Amazon handles the same problem by supporting tw
Hi All,
Is it required for new openstack API's to support both JSON and XML, or
would it be acceptable to only support JSON?
Cheers,
Rick
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : h
27 matches
Mail list logo
