From (spam-protected) Tue Jan 4 15:42:21 2011 From: (spam-protected) (sebastian sauer) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 15:42:21 +0100 Subject: [Nodedb-interop] restful json Message-ID: <20110104144221.GA16802@mute.lo-res.org> Hi, just subscribed here and was reading the archive.. re. http://lists.funkfeuer.at/pipermail/nodedb-interop/2009-November/000006.html > One thing I would like to point us to is the open-mesh.com format: > The request is encoded in a HTTP GET string (urlencoded) and the > answer is a HTTP "name: value" pair. I can give some samples if > needed. This sound pretty much like a RESTful JSON API :) IMO the only sensible approach for doing such things. The alternatives like SOAP (POST requests and XML bloated responses) are a PITA. RESTful means HTTP GET is used. JSON is the data-format (which is well supported in Haskell, Python, C++, C, JavaScript, etc.) From (spam-protected) Tue Jan 11 00:36:13 2011 From: (spam-protected) (Mitar) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 00:36:13 +0100 Subject: [Nodedb-interop] restful json In-Reply-To: <20110104144221.GA16802@mute.lo-res.org> References: <20110104144221.GA16802@mute.lo-res.org> Message-ID: <4D2B97ED.7030708@tnode.com> Hi! > RESTful means HTTP GET is used. JSON is the data-format (which > is well supported in Haskell, Python, C++, C, JavaScript, etc.) I think this is unimportant. The important thing is schema. If we will then encode/communicate in this schema over XML, JSON, HTTP, XMPP, database replication, Wave protocol, IRC, SNMP, whatever, this is an implementation question and will probably evolve as technologies will evolve. So I think we do not need to specify implementation, just schema. We can propose some best-practice solutions and do some reference implementation, but first, please, let us do schema. > JSON is the data-format (which is well supported in Haskell, Python, > C++, C, JavaScript, etc.) Haskell support is really important, yes. ;-) Mitar