>...requesting /a/b/c.all.json would return the subtree rooted at > node c to be dumped as JSON. what about using 0 or -1 instead of all. this would save some lines of parsing and would from my point of view cleaner in terms of "depth notation".
regards, philipp On 1/9/08, Felix Meschberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > Am Mittwoch, den 09.01.2008, 11:03 +0100 schrieb Carsten Ziegeler: > > Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > > > On Jan 9, 2008 10:42 AM, Philipp Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> ...my proposal: > > >> full recursive mode should be default. if you would like to specify > > >> the recursion depth one could e.g. specify a request parameter that > > >> specifies the depth.... > > > > > > Isn't that a bit dangerous? > > > A json GET at / would then get the whole repository... > > > > > Let's keep security issues etc. aside for a moment. I think the > > important question is what do you expect if you invoke > > /something/object.json? > > > > Just the first level? The whole object? > > It depends, how you define "the whole object". When accessing a node > resource, the object is the node and thus returning the properties of > the node is probably the whole object :-) > > After discussing this internally, the "correct" solution would probably > be to default to just one level and allow to specify the number of > levels to dump as a selector. This would also allow caching the result > (as opposed to using a request parameter). > > So a request to /a/b/c.json would return the properties of node c as > JSON and requesting /a/b/c.all.json would return the subtree rooted at > node c to be dumped as JSON. > > > PS: Whatever the outcome of this discussion is, we should apply the same > > rules to the XML output. > > Definitely. > > Regards > Felix > >
