1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <jordanmack1981@gmail.com>) id 1RchiN-0002hK-P9
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 19 Dec 2011 18:13:31 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.213.47 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.213.47; envelope-from=jordanmack1981@gmail.com;
helo=mail-yw0-f47.google.com;
Received: from mail-yw0-f47.google.com ([209.85.213.47])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1RchiK-00019x-5J
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 19 Dec 2011 18:13:31 +0000
Received: by yhoo47 with SMTP id o47so4491253yho.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 19 Dec 2011 10:13:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.236.181.71 with SMTP id k47mr30035839yhm.28.1324318402832;
Mon, 19 Dec 2011 10:13:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.50] (c-67-188-239-72.hsd1.ca.comcast.net.
[67.188.239.72])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m38sm48828230anq.16.2011.12.19.10.13.19
(version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 19 Dec 2011 10:13:20 -0800 (PST)
Sender: Jordan Mack <jordanmack1981@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4EEF7EB4.6070800@parhelic.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 10:13:08 -0800
From: Jordan Mack <jordanmack@parhelic.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
References: <1323728469.78044.YahooMailNeo@web121012.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
<CAJna-HjyZv2y9grNdnKKG8k6tn7jdW=zL=vtrALpeW8jkuzV6Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CAGQP0AEEzOjc2ayOJYgs_oh4RG91Dp4JSHUjyPX=qdp+ri6oSg@mail.gmail.com>
<201112191130.43721.luke@dashjr.org>
<4EEF6EA2.4060709@parhelic.com>
<CAJna-HgjkC95pt+REmLi2tUh7MVmP-nYwLgzCzrK78qBmEcE_Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJna-HgjkC95pt+REmLi2tUh7MVmP-nYwLgzCzrK78qBmEcE_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(jordanmack1981[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
0.1 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in
digit (jordanmack1981[at]gmail.com)
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
-0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1RchiK-00019x-5J
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [BIP 15] Aliases
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 18:13:31 -0000
With all due respect, I continue to disagree on the topic of using HTTP
for data interchange.
Yes, an HTTP multipart response will accomplish the need for multiple
named resources. The problem is that parsing of a multipart response
isn't simple, and library support is weak across many languages. The
widely adopted cURL library does not support multipart response parsing
at all.
JSON is widely adopted, human readable, and has parsing libraries
available for every major language. There is a bit of additional bloat,
but I believe it is warranted in this case because of the convenience
and ease it brings to developers.
If the idea is to "KISS", and provide a method that is both quick and
easy to implement for the average developer, then JSON is a stand out
option. Using HTTP for the data interchange will make things difficult
for a lot of developers if multipart responses are used. JSON will be
greeted with open arms.
On 12/19/2011 9:09 AM, slush wrote:
> I agree with Luke that HTTP standard has everything necessary and
> bloating payload with json/xml is not necessary.
>
> Btw that argument "we have json in client already" seems pretty wrong,
> because json in server rpc solves another problem (and solve it in wrong
> way, because of data type issues, but it's another story).
|
