One of its big attractions for me is that it's so simple....it's very
practical to use it from the commandline. Its simplicity is also
its main defect - it doesn't distinguish between different numeric
types which makes things a little difficult if we wanted to run
encodings with stronger typing in parallel with it. I'm sure there's
a workaround.....
I agree that YAML is probably not worth it...we might as well keep the xml encoding in xmlrpc.
Anyway....before I get carried away, we're getting a bit ahead of ourselves here though - can we hold off on this till tomorrow? There are other questions that we should ask first.
J
On 6 Feb 2007, at 16:41, Alasdair Allan wrote:
>
> Noel Winstanley wrote:
>> I don't think soap is the right tool for the job in this case. I'd
>> like to draw the group's attention to JSON... as an increasingly
>> popular alternative to XML-RPC, which is no more heavyweight, and
>> is maybe a transport / representation that should also be considered.
>
> JSON has mind share and is viewed as being "sexier" than XML-RPC
> for some reason. I think it's a strong candidate. Certainly we
> should just pick one of these data representations, preferably a
> fairly widespread language neutral one, and shouldn't under any
> circumstances roll our own. I don't think we'd want to go as far as
> YAML though, I can't see the need?
>
> Al.
>
Received on 2007-02-06Z17:51:54