Dagobert Michelsen wrote: >> Am 19.02.2015 um 18:05 schrieb Howard Chu <email@example.com>: >>> Dagobert Michelsen wrote: >>> >>> I have made some enhancements to back-sock to use JSON for the passed data and JSON-RPC >>> to map LDAP calls to method invocations. >> >> my initial reaction: the current format is just a tweaked LDIF. LDIF itself is still a more >> compact format than JSON. I personally am opposed to adding any JSON dependencies to our >> code base. Anyone else have an opinion? > > Well, of course you are right that the LDAP presentation is more efficient. > However I think from a client perspective it would be easier not to deal > with LDIF, especially as you can choose a JSON-RPC server suitable for your > needs and have the data already available for the function and concentrate > on implementing the functionality: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSON-RPC#Implementations You assume that many people want to do JSON-RPC. IMHO that's only your specific need. And it shouldn't be too hard for you to write an external generic back-sock listener which translates this custom LDIF to JSON and provide it as separate open source project. The point with choosing a data format is that there are so many formats. During the last 15 years there were various major formats en vogue also with lots of proprietary flavors. I'm pretty sure JSON is not the last one, e.g. personally I lost interest in JSON-SCIM pretty quickly. Ciao, Michael.
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature