On 10 November 2013 14:37, Peter Waher <[email protected]> wrote: > I would prefer not to use JSON as I want to include this in resource > constrained environments. They already have sufficient problems implementing > XML parsers, and to include JSON parses as well (for no apparent reason) > would just be a waste of precious bytes in a small device. Furthermore, > using JSON is like check-mating the entire idea by using XML in XMPP in the > first place: plugability using namespaces, easy to validate (schema), search > (XPath) and version handling and transformations (XSLT). I understand > javascript clients are fond of JSON, but as a protocol to send tagged and > interoperable data, I would choose XML.
I (personally, and as author of the JSON container XEP), agree completely. Although I like the idea of re-using an existing protocol's semantics (and Logstash's might be good here), I think the goal was "logging over XMPP" not "logstash over XMPP". I think (and hope) such a XEP would be used for more than just systems communicating with logstash. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect integrations with any existing logging systems to require a small amount of code to transform log messages into the format required by the XEP. Regards, Matthew
