Hi Stephen,

Thanks for taking the time to write both responses.

> On 7 Jan 2015, at 19:27, Stephen Balukoff <sbaluk...@bluebox.net> wrote:
> I think we defaulted to JSON because it's a well-understood way of 
> serializing data for use in a RESTful interface. I'm not familiar with 
> protobufs, and am willing to hear you out on reasons we should use it instead 
> of JSON-- but do note that what you're seeing is the result of some hard-won 
> compromises after extensive discussion, and we're *finally* (after several 
> months of this) getting to the point where we can divide-and-conquer on this 
> problem because we're achieving clarity and consensus on what the components 
> should be and how they should interface. We're going to be resistant to 
> changing certain details precisely because we don't want to re-open cans of 
> worms that we're just now getting sealed shut-- so unless you've got some 
> *really* compelling reasons here, we're unlikely to want to change things at 
> this juncture.

I’ve pretty much summarised the reasons here at the following URL but I 
understand the reasons for sticking with JSON: 

Kind Regards
Andrew Hutchings - LinuxJedi - http://www.linuxjedi.co.uk/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to