Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/3] JSON/XML output for scripting interface

From: Julian Phillips <julian@quantumfyre.co.uk>
Date: Apr 11, 2010, 23:30 UTC
Message-ID: <61c2a556d3b557df82cc5da764b5d0f2@212.159.54.234>
In-Reply-To: <776480BE-3652-489A-96C9-9312321E49C0@gmail.com>

On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 09:25:04 +1000, Jon Seymour <jon.seymour@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> On 12/04/2010, at 8:22, Jon Seymour <jon.seymour@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> So, would it be worth providing a hint as to record type in the
>> output_start_object call so that if it was later desired to subsume
>> line-oriented formats under the same framework, there is enough
>> information available to the backend to do that?
> 
> Of course, one way to do this would be to use a more descriptive  
> record name than "entry". This would make the record itself (as  
> opposed to just it's fields) self-describing.
> 
> The point is, you would want to start using descriptive record names  
> now so that you don't end up locked into a partially context sensitive  
> base of consumers who are expecting their JSON records to be called  
> "entry" and using context hints to infer the actual record type.

I have to admit that most of the names were just "first idea out of the hat" - not really something I was paying too much attention to. It's fairly easy to tweak them later, provided it's done before they get published.

Having said that, I've just mailed out v2 patches, which already include line-based output (using a different approach). ;)

More descriptive names are probably something that should be done anyway though.

-- 
Julian