Open Stack

On Aug 10, 2012, at 8:43 AM, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> wrote:

> David Kranz wrote:
> 
>> 2. I don't know why George insists that "developer laziness" or
>> "boredom" is responsible for the current situation. If these developers'
>> employers said XML
>>   was important they would give it more priority. We can only conclude
>> that there are not many employers saying that to their employees.
> 
> That's the crux of the issue. If XML support was "what customers want"
> then we'd find more of the companies invested in OpenStack pushing
> resources towards a better support for it. It's not just about
> "developers loving JSON".

This is complete bullshit.

Sorry. The politically correct term is "sample bias".

The OpenStack developer community is dominated by vendors. Actually, by developers at vendors with unfortunately little management oversight. It's an audience that is naturally pre-disposed to JSON.

But I really don't want to get into XML vs. JSON. When developing a new API, one can make honest arguments for one, the other, or both. I prefer both. Rackspace obviously preferred both because the Rackspace API has always supported both. And there are tools written against the Rackspace API that use XML that port very easily to OpenStack because of the similarities in the two APIs.

Nevertheless, we're not talking about a new API. We are talking about Folsom. That's where the story should end, regardless of the merits of XML vs. JSON.

What causes me to go ballistic isn't the XML vs. JSON issue. It's that this is considered a legitimate topic at this point in the development cycle.

-George

--
George Reese (george.reese at imaginary.com)
t: @GeorgeReese               m: +1(207)956-0217               Skype: nspollution
cal: http://tungle.me/GeorgeReese   




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20120810/177cc929/attachment-0001.html>