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

From: Julian Phillips <julian@quantumfyre.co.uk>
Date: Apr 11, 2010, 17:45 UTC
Message-ID: <d0869259b375a26df46ef92a2b973615@212.159.54.234>
In-Reply-To: <w2lfabb9a1e1004111034n1aec73f2h3cf5f1d8468b6036@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 19:34:13 +0200, Sverre Rabbelier <srabbelier@gmail.com> wrote:

> Heya,
> 
> On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 19:30, Julian Phillips

<julian@quantumfyre.co.uk>

Show 7 quoted lines

> wrote:
>> you'll have to tell me what you think.
> 
> The patch does look fairly simple, but I worry that not all commands
> will be so simple, that is, they might not all have such an easy point
> where you can hook in a different output method? Or am I seeing bears
> where there are none?

I think that there probably are commands where it will be more work to integrate the output - but I think that is probably more to do with the structure of the current code than the API of the new. Does it make a difference what the API of the new output code is if there isn't currently a sensible hook-in point?

If code has been written without the expectation that the output format could be changed then the effort to add a new output format could be considerably more than for status or ls-tree. However, with the frontend/backend design hopefully we only have to endure the effort once to get multiple output formats.

-- 
Julian