Open Stack

On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 5:19 AM, Doug Hellmann
<doug.hellmann at dreamhost.com>wrote:

>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya <vishvananda at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jun 21, 2013, at 12:38 PM, Doug Hellmann <doug.hellmann at dreamhost.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya <
>> vishvananda at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 20, 2013, at 10:22 AM, Brant Knudson <blk at acm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> +1 for something like this. JSON primary + autgenerated XML. I think the
>>> ideal version would be autogeneration of xml from jsonschema and some
>>> method for prettifying the xml representation via jsonschema tags. The
>>> jsonschema + tags approach is probably a bit further off (maybe for v4?),
>>> so having an auto conversion which is ugly but functional seems better than
>>> no XML support at all.
>>>
>>> Vish
>>>
>>
>> Let's please not invent something new for this. We're building a high
>> level platform. We shouldn't have to screw around with making so many low
>> level frameworks to do things for which tools already exist. WSME will
>> handle serialization, cleanly, in both XML and JSON already. Let's just use
>> that.
>>
>> Doug
>>
>>
>> Doug,
>>
>> Switching to WSME for v3 is out of scope at this point I think.
>> Definitely worth considering for v4 though.
>>
>> Vish
>>
>
> Absolutely - we agreed about that weeks ago. I assumed, however, that
> decision meant we would just continue to use the existing serialization
> code. I thought this discussion was moving toward writing something new,
> and I wanted to head that off.
>
>
Don't worry we don't have time/resources to invent something new :-)

In the end given the amount of resources and time we have during Havana if
we want XML support (which it looks like we will have to continue to
support) we are going to have to decide to concentrate the test effort on
primarily JSON or attempt to cover both JSON and XML, but obviously not be
able to do it as well as just concentrating on one format.

Regards,

Chris
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20130626/4ffeefe9/attachment.html>