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

From: Sverre Rabbelier <srabbelier@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 11, 2010, 17:50 UTC
Message-ID: <p2ofabb9a1e1004111050x660c37fdke4d5316baaa0cfbe@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <d0869259b375a26df46ef92a2b973615@212.159.54.234>

Heya,

On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 19:45, Julian Phillips <julian@quantumfyre.co.uk> wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

> 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?

No you are right, the existance of such hard-to-change commands does not really affect the API design in this case, although I think it might be a good idea to try out at least one such command before committing to using this API. For example, it might turn out that there's an elegant way to hook in, or that adding all those if (output_style != OUTPUT_NORMAL) statements gets cluttery and there should be a different way to do things instead.

Show 5 quoted lines

> 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.

I'm curious to see where this will lead us :).

-- 
Cheers,

Sverre Rabbelier