The document I posted uses JSON only as a simple way to describe generic data structures. There is a big disclaimer at the beginning of "operations.md". The operations are supposed to be described in an abstract way, without any procol-dependent technology. Please, let's evaluate "operations.md" without thinking so much about JSON, JSOP or other serialization strategies.
That said, since the topic was brought up, I have to admit that I'm not a big fan of JSOP. I don't see any benefit in that format, since it doesn't really add anything that couldn't be done with plain JSON, if I understand correctly. When we will start thinking about an HTTP binding of the remote API, nothing stops us to support both JSON and JSOP, using HTTP content negotiation to allow the client to use whatever he likes. To begin, though, I would prefer to stick to JSON since at the moment is the most interoperable format of the two. 2015-01-26 11:09 GMT+01:00 Lukas Kahwe Smith <[email protected]>: > >> On 26 Jan 2015, at 11:07, Bertrand Delacretaz <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Francesco Mari >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> At the beginning I wanted to expose a more granular interface for node >>> operations, mapping every node to a fully REST resource.... >> >> BTW, what happened to JSOP? >> http://slideshare.net/uncled/jsop > > I was going to bring that up to. Last time I spoke to David N. he was > basically open for someone else to take over pushing it forward. > > regards, > Lukas Kahwe Smith > [email protected] > > >
