Re: [Openstack] Just JSON, and extensibility

built from mixed repositories? From: Justin Santa Barbara [mailto:jus...@fathomdb.com] Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 4:40 PM To: Caitlin Bestler Cc: Jorge Williams; Mark Nottingham; Thierry Carrez; Subject: Re: [Openstack] Just JSON, and extensibility It's easy when each new version is de

Re: [Openstack] Just JSON, and extensibility

On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Justin Santa Barbara wrote: > >>>- Each (known) extension has its own strongly-typed model object. >>> >>> >> Does that mean that an extension cannot add properties to an existing >> object (such as adding a new attribute an Image), or just that all of those >

Re: [Openstack] Just JSON, and extensibility

> > >>- Each (known) extension has its own strongly-typed model object. >> >> > Does that mean that an extension cannot add properties to an existing > object (such as adding a new attribute an Image), or just that all of those > properties will be an a nested object (such as > Image.my_extensi

Re: [Openstack] Just JSON, and extensibility

On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Justin Santa Barbara wrote: > I don't think that works for non-linear extensibility... > > I would be very happy if we could agree out how we're going to deal with > extensibility in JSON. It is easy to support XML & JSON & any future > formats, and have them all

Re: [Openstack] Just JSON, and extensibility

On Apr 13, 2012, at 3:20 PM, Justin Santa Barbara wrote: My understanding is that the solution we have now is that any extension goes into its own namespace; we assign a prefix to the namespace and have a way to map that prefix to the full namespace. (Similar to XML schemas). Currently prefi

Re: [Openstack] Just JSON, and extensibility

It's easy when each new version is defined by a central body. The problem we face is that we want to allow HP, Rackspace, Nexenta etc to define their own extensions, without serializing through a central body. Some extensions may only apply to private clouds and never be shared publicly. This is

Re: [Openstack] Just JSON, and extensibility

Mark Nottingham wrote on 04/13/2012 12:56:46 PM: > In particular, if people are actually using these tools to do data > binding, it's going to lead them to place dependencies upon the > structure of our interfaces, and unless the scheme is constructed > *exactly* right, we'll get lots of bug repor

Re: [Openstack] Just JSON, and extensibility

Exactly what do you see as the required "non-linear extensibility"? These are ultimately requests to a server. Each new extension is coded in that server. There is no value in a client making up its own extensions that are not understood by the server. What is relevant is a server continuing to

Re: [Openstack] Just JSON, and extensibility

I don't think that works for non-linear extensibility... I would be very happy if we could agree out how we're going to deal with extensibility in JSON. It is easy to support XML & JSON & any future formats, and have them all be nice if there's willingness to do so, but there's not, so let's drop

Re: [Openstack] Just JSON, and extensibility

On 13/04/2012, at 2:04 PM, Anne Gentle wrote: > Hi Mark, > > However, I question whether it's even being used in this fashion. Looking at > our docs for Nova > , the schema > isn't locatable, and the XML Namespace >

Re: [Openstack] Just JSON, and extensibility

Hi Mark, > However, I question whether it's even being used in this fashion. Looking > at our docs for Nova < > http://docs.openstack.org/api/openstack-compute/2/content/>, the schema > isn't locatable, and the XML Namespace < > http://docs.openstack.org/compute/api/v1.1> is a 404. How are they >

Re: [Openstack] Just JSON, and extensibility

The argument that XML has better extensibility than JSON isn't very convincing to my ears. I'm an old war horse, and recall extending message formats in ANSI C so as to maintain backwards compatibility with existing clients (by versioning the struct name itself and always keeping the same field

Re: [Openstack] Just JSON, and extensibility

On 13/04/2012, at 11:29 AM, Jorge Williams wrote: > > There are a lot more clients than servers. You have to weigh the cost of > lowering barriers for those clients at the server side vs the cost of getting > those client to successfully integrate with the system. This is typically > the a a

Re: [Openstack] Just JSON, and extensibility

On Apr 13, 2012, at 8:47 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > [ Full disclosure -- I'm using my personal address with Launchpad, etc., but > I work for Rackspace. ] > > On 12/04/2012, at 7:28 PM, Jorge Williams wrote: > >> Generally, I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but I want to point out >