+1 for that. If needed, some tools/languages could help to do XML transformation, regarding different XML schemas. I also agree with Hellmann that we shouldn't invent something new or a fixed schema for that. XML is flexible for data exchange, we can leave those mapping jobs to those XML transformation tools/languages, and focus on the current JSON work.
Thanks. -- Shane > -----Original Message----- > From: Sean Dague [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 4:02 AM > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] XML Support for Nova v3 API > > There are lots of nice things we could do, given time and people. But > the reality is that relatively few people are actually working on the > API code, documentation, tooling around it. > > I would much rather have us deliver a world class JSON API with > validation and schema and comprehensive testing, than the current state > of our JSON + XML approach which is poorly documented and only partially > tested. > > -Sean > > On 06/20/2013 01:08 PM, John Garbutt wrote: > > We spoke about some nice validation frameworks at the summit, and here > > and there. > > > > Could we get away with XML->JSON then validate the JSON request (and > > assume XML parse error also means bad request)? > > > > John > > > > On 20 June 2013 17:44, Russell Bryant <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 06/20/2013 12:00 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > >>> Christopher Yeoh wrote: > >>>> Just wondering what people thought about how necessary it is to keep XML > >>>> support for the Nova v3 API, given that if we want to drop it doing so > >>>> during the v2->v3 transition is pretty much the ideal time to do so. > >>> > >>> Although I hate XML as much as anyone else, I think it would be > >>> interesting to raise that question on the general user mailing-list. > >>> > >>> We have been discussing that in the past, and while there was mostly > >>> consensus against XML (in OpenStack API) on the development list, when > >>> the issue was raised with users, in the end they made up a > >>> sufficiently-good rationale for us to keep it in past versions of the API > >>> :) > >>> > >> > >> Yes, and I suspect we'd arrive the same result again. > >> > >> I'd rather hear ideas for things that would make it easier to support > >> both. The window is open for changes to make that easier. > >> > >> -- > >> Russell Bryant > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> OpenStack-dev mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OpenStack-dev mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > > -- > Sean Dague > http://dague.net > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
