On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Robert Newson <[email protected]> wrote: >> -1 >> >> Supporting multiple formats on disk would be a very difficult code >> change that would complicate every part of the system, I don't think >> it's worth it. >> >> > > The real problem I see is maintening different format with views and > replication, t will indeed complicate things. There are also oher > tricks that can be used on http/tcp level to speed things. Like > supporting websockets or other things like that. > > > - benoit >
Yeah, it gets interesting quickly. But that's why I think we should have the first step of basing things off the accept header for request/response bodies only. *If* something other than JSON turns into a noticeable improvement, then we *may* add a replication thing to use it. But promising to do so right out is, I think, overreaching a bit. Plus, if we can't manage to have accept based content-type switching, why should we think we'd be any better at supporting it internally?
