Open Stack

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.



On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Jorge Williams <
jorge.williams at 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 <cbkyeoh at 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 at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20130620/b46efe2a/attachment.html>