Applications Messaging Standard (was Re: )

[John Taylor]

One of its big attractions for me is that it's so simple....it's very  
practical to use it from the commandline.   Its simplicity is also  
its main defect -  it doesn't distinguish between different numeric  
types which makes things a little difficult if we wanted to run  
encodings with stronger typing in parallel with it.  I'm sure there's  
a workaround.....

I agree that YAML is probably not worth it...we might as well keep  
the xml encoding in xmlrpc.

Anyway....before I get carried away, we're getting a bit ahead of  
ourselves here though - can we hold off on this till tomorrow?  There  
are other questions that we should ask first.

J


On 6 Feb 2007, at 16:41, Alasdair Allan wrote:

>
> Noel Winstanley wrote:
>> I don't think soap is the right tool for the job in this case. I'd  
>> like to draw the group's attention to JSON... as an increasingly  
>> popular alternative to XML-RPC, which is no more heavyweight, and  
>> is maybe a transport / representation that should also be considered.
>
> JSON has mind share and is viewed as being "sexier" than XML-RPC  
> for some reason. I think it's a strong candidate. Certainly we  
> should just pick one of these data representations, preferably a  
> fairly widespread language neutral one, and shouldn't under any  
> circumstances roll our own. I don't think we'd want to go as far as  
> YAML though, I can't see the need?
>
> Al.
>