Open Stack

+1 for that.

If needed, some tools/languages could help to do XML transformation, regarding different XML schemas.
I also agree with Hellmann that we shouldn't invent something new or a fixed schema for that. XML is flexible for data exchange, we can leave those mapping jobs to those XML transformation tools/languages, and focus on the current JSON work.

Thanks.
--
Shane

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean Dague [mailto:sean at dague.net]
> Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 4:02 AM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] XML Support for Nova v3 API
> 
> There are lots of nice things we could do, given time and people. But
> the reality is that relatively few people are actually working on the
> API code, documentation, tooling around it.
> 
> I would much rather have us deliver a world class JSON API with
> validation and schema and comprehensive testing, than the current state
> of our JSON + XML approach which is poorly documented and only partially
> tested.
> 
> 	-Sean
> 
> On 06/20/2013 01:08 PM, John Garbutt wrote:
> > We spoke about some nice validation frameworks at the summit, and here
> > and there.
> >
> > Could we get away with XML->JSON then validate the JSON request (and
> > assume XML parse error also means bad request)?
> >
> > John
> >
> > On 20 June 2013 17:44, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com> wrote:
> >> On 06/20/2013 12:00 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> >>> Christopher Yeoh wrote:
> >>>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> Although I hate XML as much as anyone else, I think it would be
> >>> interesting to raise that question on the general user mailing-list.
> >>>
> >>> We have been discussing that in the past, and while there was mostly
> >>> consensus against XML (in OpenStack API) on the development list, when
> >>> the issue was raised with users, in the end they made up a
> >>> sufficiently-good rationale for us to keep it in past versions of the API :)
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yes, and I suspect we'd arrive the same result again.
> >>
> >> I'd rather hear ideas for things that would make it easier to support
> >> both.  The window is open for changes to make that easier.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Russell Bryant
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> >> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenStack-dev mailing list
> > OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >
> 
> 
> --
> Sean Dague
> http://dague.net
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev