Nat and I hashed out the pro's and cons of JSON requests.
If we POST or PUT a JSON object we need to be specific as there rare several
ways to do it that may work better or worse depending on the receiver.
This needs to be looked over and one picked.
In the other thread about the server returning the update URI and being able to
encode the client in that if it needs to takes care of Servers that need that
info in query parameters or the path to do the routing.
The use of structure can be used to enhance readability and parsing of the
input, and output.
However we need to temper our urge to apply structure to everything.
IT needs to be applied carefully otherwise we start looking like crazies.
If we do it cautiously I am in favour of JSON as input.
John B.
On 2013-02-12, at 4:32 PM, Justin Richer <jric...@mitre.org> wrote:
> Thanks for forwarding that, Mike. I'll paste in my response to Nat's concern
> here as well:
> It's an increasingly well known pattern that has reasonable support on the
> server side. For PHP, I was able to find the above example via the top hit on
> Stack Overflow. In Ruby, it's a matter of something like:
>
> JSON.parse(request.body.read)
>
> depending on the web app framework. On Java/Spring, it's a matter of
> injecting the entity body as a string and handing it to a parser (Gson in
> this case):
>
> public String doApi(@RequestBody String jsonString) { JsonObject json = new
> JsonParser().parse(jsonString).getAsJsonObject();
>
> It's a similar read/parse setup in Node.js as well.
>
> It's true that in all of these cases you don't get to make use of the routing
> or data binding facilities (though in Spring you can do that for simpler
> domain objects using a ModelBinding), so you don't get niceities like the
> $_POST array in PHP handed to you. This is why I don't think it's a good idea
> at all to switch functionality based on the contents of the JSON object. It
> should be a domain object only, which is what it would be in this case.
>
> I think that the positives of using JSON from the client's perspective and
> the overall protocol design far outweigh the slightly increased
> implementation cost at the server.
>
>
> -- Justin
>
> On 02/12/2013 02:11 PM, Mike Jones wrote:
>> FYI, this issue is also being discussed as an OpenID Connect issue at
>> https://bitbucket.org/openid/connect/issue/747. I think that Nat's recent
>> comment there bears repeating on this list:
>>
>> Nat Sakimura:
>>
>> Not so sure. For example, PHP cannot get the JSON object form
>> application/json POST in $_POST.
>>
>> It is OK to have a parameter like "request" that holds JSON. Then, you can
>> get to it from $_POST['request']. However, if you POST the JSON as the POST
>> body, then you would have to call a low level function in the form of:
>>
>>
>> ```
>> #!php
>>
>> $file = file_get_contents('php://input'); $x = json_decode($file); ```
>>
>> Not that it is harder, but it is much less known. Many PHP programmers will
>> certainly goes "???".
>>
>> We need to check what would be the cases for other scripting languages
>> before making the final decision.
>>
>> -- Mike
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>> Justin Richer
>> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 1:15 PM
>> To: oauth@ietf.org
>> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Registration: JSON Encoded Input
>>
>> Draft -05 of OAuth Dynamic Client Registration [1] switched from a
>> form-encoded input that had been used by drafts -01 through -04 to a JSON
>> encoded input that was used originally in -00. Note that all versions keep
>> JSON-encoded output from all operations.
>>
>> Pro:
>> - JSON gives us a rich data structure so that things such as lists,
>> numbers, nulls, and objects can be represented natively
>> - Allows for parallelism between the input to the endpoint and output from
>> the endpoint, reducing possible translation errors between the two
>> - JSON specifies UTF8 encoding for all strings, forms may have many
>> different encodings
>> - JSON has minimal character escaping required for most strings, forms
>> require escaping for common characters such as space, slash, comma, etc.
>>
>> Con:
>> - the rest of OAuth is form-in/JSON-out
>> - nothing else in OAuth requires the Client to create a JSON object,
>> merely to parse one
>> - form-in/JSON-out is a very widely established pattern on the web today
>> - Client information (client_name, client_id, etc.) is conflated with
>> access information (registration_access_token, _links, expires_at, etc.) in
>> root level of the same JSON object, leaving the client to decide what needs
>> to (can?) be sent back to the server for update operations.
>>
>>
>> Alternatives include any number of data encoding schemes, including form
>> (like the old drafts), XML, ASN.1, etc.
>>
>>
>> -- Justin
>>
>> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-05
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> OAuth@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
