[Web-SIG] [proposal] merging jsonrpc into xmlrpc
pywebsig at xhaus.com
Tue Apr 8 23:01:01 CEST 2008
>> since json-rpc and xml-rpc basically do the same
>> and the only difference is the content-type (json is more concise),
>> i propose to create a single xml/json-rpc module.
> The problem with the JSON-RPC 1.0 specification was that it wasn't
> always as clear as could have been.
> Unfortunately the JSON-RPC 1.1 draft specification didn't necessarily
> make things better.
> The JSON-RPC 1.1
> specification was also never really completed and left out details
> such as standard error codes etc that there were proposing be
All valid concerns.
I think that the JSON-RPC initiative lost its way a little. They tried
to model things such as encoding and decoding an object graph, using
object references, etc, which IMHO is a step too far for the usages
JSON-RPC would get, and is more CORBA than XML-RPC.
The maintainer of the JSON-RPC.org site was looking for someone to
take it over for a while; I think someone might have taken it over
> Are you
> prepared to go and test it with a sufficient range of clients to make
> sure Python implemented server side interops properly?
Interestingly, the reference implementation for JSON-RPC is a server
written in python.
Perhaps python's best interests in this case are better served by
letting that reference implementation drive the JSON-RPC standards
If that is the case, then it is counter-productive to add a competing
module to the python standard library.
 But it's a shame they didn't write it on WSGI: then their services
could have run on the Google compute cloud ;-)
 Perhaps some pythonista from Web-SIG is most appropriate to advise
how JSON-RPC should move forward? After all, we're more accustomed to
More information about the Web-SIG