On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Martin S. Weber <[email protected]>wrote:
> Actually, if the complete CLI functionality was available as JSON output, > we'd automatically have our library/frontend model. Think about it, a > library is a backend that you communicate with. i agree with that, but actually using it that way from client scripts seems tedious and inefficient. > What would then be lacking, of course, would be the simple steps that e.g. > sync, commit, list, mv, etc. are being composed of. That might be a > not-so-herculian effort in the end to make fossil a library. > Agreed. In a mail to Richard on the topic i mentioned that once we have a JSON API, we get the lib/app split for free. In a sense, anway. > I haven't given this a looooot of thought, just saying: in the end what we > would want ...a GUI and slapping my users if they try to do something > stupid). a) to c) can be achieved with IPC, too, of course (just look at the > COM/CORBA model, remove all the bloat and voila, you have <data-format> over > <protocol>). > CORBA *shudder*!!! That's all true, though. Btw, I suggest starting a new thread, called: FOSSILS JSON-RPC INTERFACE ;) > Just to get "REST" out of people minds... > LOL! It took me all day to get it out of my mind. So are we agreed that REST is not the goal (at least not initially)? Since CGI doesn't support the full range of REST features (PUT/DELETE, apparently), REST support would take me into areas i'm not yet fit to code myself. Regarding your earlier comments about error code leakage to clients: i just added some code to set a "paranoia level" for error reporting. e.g. code 1234 can be returned as any of (1234, 1230, 1200, or 1000). Once again, i appreciate your continued feedback. -- ----- stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
