Hi Howard, > 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. The function signatures of the JSON-RPC calls >> are modeled to be similar to the ones used in json2ldap (which does just the opposite >> direction to talk LDAP via JSON-RPC) [1]. The previous hand-crafted format passed on the >> socket was harder to parse and needed a manually built parser whereas now a standard >> library can be used. However, handling the JSON data structures now imposes an additional >> dependency to Jansson (a JSON access library in C) [2]. Jansson itself is leightweight and >> has no dependencies itself. Due to the limited use of back-sock and the enhanced ease of >> use I think it would be acceptable to add this dependency. > > 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 I see back-sock not as a solution for super high performance, but as a tool to build somewhat exotic adapters and proof of concepts. Allowing a quick implementation is at least for me the primary goal here. Best regards — Dago -- "You don't become great by trying to be great, you become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard that you become great in the process." - xkcd #896
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature