Hi Michael, > Am 08.03.2015 um 10:18 schrieb Michael Ströder <michael@stroeder.com>: > > Dagobert Michelsen wrote: >>> Am 19.02.2015 um 18:05 schrieb Howard Chu <hyc@symas.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. I would happily do that, however I need some extra fields to be passed. Without a standardized extendable format that doesn’t break existing clients this inconveniences existing users, be it XML or JSON or YAML or whatever else that doesn’t require a custom parser. > 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. Certainly not, but sticking to a hardly extendable custom format doesn’t seem very useful either. Best regards — Dago
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature