It just hit me. JSON is utterly useless in this space. On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Chris Webb <chris.webb@elastichosts.com> wrote:
Once I've conceded that we won't pick the right format, I then have to try
to advocate the 'least wrong' one. JSON carries much less baggage than Atom,
Sorry, but you're wrong. The problem space here requires that there be in place the ability to take two function names which seemingly provide the same functionality, carry the same name, and yet couldn't be further apart in regards to the action they represent on each of the systems in which they live, and make a clear distinction as to what each particular function call actually does. In relation to XML, this particular problem was solved nearly 10 years ago with the introduction of XML namespaces, something JSON is simply not capable of dealing with at this stage of the game. requires much less code to parse,
As would any system that didn't have to differentiate between two words spelled exactly the same and yet had two completely different meanings.
and will be easier to translate back and
forth from
... from? If there's no back then there's no forth, so there's subsequently no back and forth between anything that means exactly the same thing on one system as it does another. But there's no such thing as two systems that are exactly alike. And JSON doesn't allow for such discrepancies. something more sysadmin-friendly with a small standalone C
utility,
Looks like the sysadmins are going to have to suck it up and learn French this semester. Sorry folks, JSON won't work in this space. Unless the goal of the OCCI is finding a way for system vendors to agree upon homogenizing their system API's? I'm pretty sure it's not, and in this regard, JSON simply will not work. Period. -- /M:D M. David Peterson Co-Founder & Chief Architect, 3rd&Urban, LLC Email: m.david@3rdandUrban.com | m.david@amp.fm Mobile: (206) 999-0588 http://3rdandUrban.com | http://amp.fm | http://broadcast.oreilly.com/m-david-peterson/